6.15.2006

The End Is Near

You think those two recent Supreme Court appointments will have an impact? It has begun. For over 40 years the "exclusionary rule" has been in effect. That is, if the police break the law in searching or arresting you, any evidence they find as a result of that breach will be excluded from evidence and cannot be used against a defendant. It's a hard and fast rule. Until today. Even though your Supreme Court has said that the constitution requires police to "knock and announce" their presence when executing a search warrant, the Court held today (in a 5-4 decision) that a violation of that particular rule won't require any evidence found to be excluded. Why? Because they say so. That is, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas say so. The case was Booker T. Hudson v. Michigan. Come to think about, the defendant probably lost once the five justices saw his name was "Booker T."

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find that not breaking the law is a really cool way to keep police from finding evidence, legally or illegally, that would get me in trouble.

Atticus said...

You are right, but if you ever get accused of something you didn't do, it will surprise you how much you appreciate several of the amendments to the US Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The King could do not wrong back in 1776.

Anonymous said...

You're off on a tangent. Accusations versus evidence. Any of us can be falsely accused, and of course I would be grateful for the chance to prove innocence.

My point is specific to the blog issue. How can a police officer find something in my house if it doesn't exist?

Atticus said...

I think you are the one missing the point. The current Supreme Court appears to be headed toward taking away substantive rights that help keep us free. In this case it is the exclusionary rule and the requirement to knock before you execute a search warrant. If you are okay with the police being able to walk up and bust your door down to serve the warrant, then this isn't a problem for you. I like the idea of the police being required to knock on doors to serve search warrants. It is a right to privacy issue with me. Government has its limitations and this is one of them, as I see it.

Anonymous said...

So if the justices rule in the way a defense attorney would like it is the rule of law (must be good because it was put in place during the demo heyday in the 60s)

If not, its time to play the race card. I nominate this for your dumbest blog post. Ann Coulter was right on last night's Tonight show, you demos play off supposed victims to try to make your case. Throw out a victim or play the race card so the other side can't respond ithout looking as if they are beating up on the downtrodden.

This had nothing to do with race. And the Constitution spells out the procedures for the naming of justices. Looks like you just don't agree with the conclusion they reached. Don't worry I won't suggest that you are racist just because I think you're wrong. You have the right to post whatever you want.

Atticus said...

Actually I don't think the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution is a Demo/Republican sort of thing. If you don't have the exclusionary rule, the 4th amendment becomes meaningless. Most true conservatives don't really like big brother or trust government. Most citizens enjoy their rights. Maybe we will repeal the 4th Amendment and then Big Brother can walk in and search property like they do in Cuba and China. After all if you aren't doing anything wrong, you really shouldn't mind the government looking around in your house.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:31: Race has nothing to do with constitutional rights. You are the one who brought up race, not Atticus. The issue is the 4th amendment and the exclusionary rule. Our Supreme Court is changing the law. You may like that. You may not like that. Got noth'n to do with race.

Anonymous said...

What if they got the wrong house? It very well happens. If I chose to own a gun, and the cops busted down my door without knocking, I think I would be shooting to kill.....I'd be freaking out because someone burst into my house without notice - it would be a natural reaction, and I would go for the head, not the torso. I don't break the law much - maybe a rolling instead of full stop at a rural stop sign occasionally. I don't speed, I use cruise control. I'm sure there are several obscure laws I break that I'm not even aware of too, but this really concerns me, and it's not over yet - it probably will get way worse before it's over, Constitutionally speaking. Oh yeah, to the other Anon - I watched Ann on TV last night, and I swear I saw his/her Adam's Apple - Jay was totally disgusted with him/her, but held himself well.......Ann's a man, or else she has a serious thyroid problem she needs to have checked.

bigcatdaddy said...

This is the end of freedom. Our rights will now be snatched away one by one.

I'll be sitting here...the whole time....and at the end....I WILL BE THE ONE who tells all you conservatives, "I TOLD YOU SO!" Oh, but wait a minute...I won't be able to do that....considering we won't have free speech anymore.

bigcatdaddy said...

Oh I forgot.....GO MAVS!!!!

Stay positive folks...I know its even at 2-2....but please stay positive.

bigm said...

BS fearmongering. The exclusionary rule (note "rule"...not "right" or "law") was decision put in place by a court in the last half century and has no bearing on the 4th amenment. It has been controversial from the beginning and has been upheld in the past by no more than single votes of the court. The issue isn't whether the police can or cannot do something, but more as to the disposition of the gathered evidence. This court has basically just said that if the evidence is gathered in a manner inconsistant with the rules, it is not automatically thrown out. That is as it should be. Sanction (jail?) the police for illegal gathering if need be, but don't disregard a tangible fact.

Anonymous said...

5:08 Barry introduced race:
"Come to think about, the defendant probably lost once the five justices saw his name was "Booker T.""