Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email [email protected]

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

I can't believe the Supreme Court is getting rid of the exclusionary rule (and fruit of the Poisonou

Do they think the bill of rights just a nice decoration?

Re: I can't believe the Supreme Court is getting rid of the exclusionary rule (and fruit of the Poisonou

  • Yes. That is hyperbole. Roberts freaks me out.
  • Whoa! Seriously? Do you have a link for this?
  • Okay, big hyperbole. NYTimes had an article about Herring today (that decision came down mid-month or so). this article dded Robert's and Alito's history of striving to minimize 4th Amendment protections.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?hp

  • According to all of those dramas on TV, cops only do the wrong thing when it's for the right reason, so I'm OK with this! Confused
  • image sonrisa:
    Do they think the bill of rights just a nice decoration?

    Why would you be slinging mud at Roberts over this?  Here's a quote from the NYT (not exactly a huge Roberts supporter):

    The United States takes a distinctive approach to the exclusionary rule, requiring automatic suppression of physical evidence in some kinds of cases. That means, in theory at least, that relatively minor police misconduct can result in the suppression of conclusive evidence of terrible crimes.

    Other nations balance the two interests case by case or rely on other ways to deter police wrongdoing directly, including professional discipline, civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

    In Herring, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to be advocating those kinds of approaches. ?To trigger the exclusionary rule,? he wrote, ?police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.?

    That price, the chief justice wrote, ?is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.?
     

  • The US takes a distinctive view on many things.  That is why they wrote the Constitution in the first place - to take a different stance. The exclusionary rule is the only thing which gives teeth to the 4th Amendment protections.  Without it, the searcha nd seizure protections have no meaning. 
  • image sonrisa:
    The US takes a distinctive view on many things.  That is why they wrote the Constitution in the first place - to take a different stance. The exclusionary rule is the only thing which gives teeth to the 4th Amendment protections.  Without it, the search and seizure protections have no meaning.

    I could not agree more.   Unfortunately, when I explain the exclusionary rule to people they see it as a protection of the rights of criminals. It has been my general experience that most people don't care that the rights of criminals are being infringed upon.  What they don't realize is that it is every persons rights that are being protected, not just those of criminals. 

    The exclusionary rule works to limit police abuse of every person's rights.  If there was no exclusionary rule there would be absolutely no consequence  or deterrence to police officer misconduct.  Nothing would deter officers from stepping outside of the confinements of the Fourth Amendment.  It would, in effect, make the warrant requirement and probably cause silly notions that would never be adhered to.  In effect, it would do away with the Fourth Amendment.   This terrifies me. No warrant requirements to stop officers from entering into your house whenever they damn well please.  No probable cause requirement to stop officers from arresting and searching whomever they desire, whenever they desire, criminals or not.  All citizens would lose protections from governmental intrusion into every part of their lives.  SCARY!


  • image liv.n.dan:

    I could not agree more.   Unfortunately, when I explain the exclusionary rule to people they see it as a protection of the rights of criminals. It has been my general experience that most people don't care that the rights of criminals are being infringed upon.  What they don't realize is that it is every persons rights that are being protected, not just those of criminals. 

    The exclusionary rule works to limit police abuse of every person's rights.  If there was no exclusionary rule there would be absolutely no consequence  or deterrence to police officer misconduct.  Nothing would deter officers from stepping outside of the confinements of the Fourth Amendment.  It would, in effect, make the warrant requirement and probably cause silly notions that would never be adhered to.  In effect, it would do away with the Fourth Amendment.   This terrifies me. No warrant requirements to stop officers from entering into your house whenever they damn well please.  No probable cause requirement to stop officers from arresting and searching whomever they desire, whenever they desire, criminals or not.  All citizens would lose protections from governmental intrusion into every part of their lives.  SCARY!


    Very, very well said. 

  • Wait, are they getting rid of it or narrowing its application??
    "I
  • TTT - right now, narrowing it (or, narrowing fruit of the poisonous tree). 2012 - eliminating it all together.  Here come the warrantless storm troopers ;-)
  • Well I don't agree with doing away with it, but I do agree with narrowing its application, particularly in cases like the Herring case.
    "I
  • There you go, being reasonable ;-)

    I'm more worried about where this might lead and how narrowly or broadly they apply it later.

  • The finer legal minds will have to weigh in on the exact meaning of the decision, but isn't Roberts essentially saying, "let the punishment fit the crime?"

    If the state makes an egregious error/offense, the sanction can be severe even if it means thowing out the evidence and freeing an obviouisly guilty person.  If the state makes a minor oversight or small technical violation, the sanction can be less severe and not automatically throw out the evidence.  Each case (of the state error/offense) should be decided on its own merits.

    Judges will still decide the sanction.  It doesn't seem like such a slippery slope to eliminating the exclusionary rule unless you believe judges themselves want to do away with it.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards