NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/23/supremecourt/main4039709.shtml

The guy who commented on this article at the bottom said it best

"Unbelievable! The police will no longer need a ''search warrant'' or even ''probable cause'' to search your home or your car.

They can arrest you for some fictitious crime knowing fully well that the arrest will be thrown out. They then proceed to search your home presumably to learn more about the fictitious crime. But, in doing so, they will turn your house upside down and look for anything to pin on you.

The original theft gets thrown out (it was for fictitious a crime after all) but now the police will RE-ARREST you based on what they found!

The "search" conducted by the police was the fruit of a poisonous tree (the false arrest). This has never been legal.

This ruling just invalidated hundreds of Law and Order episodes."

It does seem rather police stateish

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/23/supremecourt/main4039709.shtml

The guy who commented on this article at the bottom said it best

"Unbelievable! The police will no longer need a ''search warrant'' or even ''probable cause'' to search your home or your car.

They can arrest you for some fictitious crime knowing fully well that the arrest will be thrown out. They then proceed to search your home presumably to learn more about the fictitious crime. But, in doing so, they will turn your house upside down and look for anything to pin on you.

The original theft gets thrown out (it was for fictitious a crime after all) but now the police will RE-ARREST you based on what they found!

The "search" conducted by the police was the fruit of a poisonous tree (the false arrest). This has never been legal.

This ruling just invalidated hundreds of Law and Order episodes."


Police have always had the right to search the immediate area after an arrest.

Also remember that they cant just show up at your house and arrest you without an arrest warrent.

Also remember that they cant just show up at your house and arrest you without an arrest warrent.

Why not? If its illegal, big deal, just drop whatever charge you invented and search to your hearts content. "What? You mean i didnt have an arrest warrent to arrest you at your house? Oh sorry about that, now about this bale of marijuanna in your closet.."

Why not? If its illegal, big deal, just drop whatever charge you invented and search to your hearts content.

But then said evidence would be thrown out in court. Arrest lacked a warrent, making their search in the immediate area illegal, and they didnt have a search warrent.


Im not saying this court case is anything but an abomination, and the minute I read a quote from Justice I can read the founding fathers rotting minds Sculia I knew it was going to be suspect. However, its not the step into jack booted thug territory you seem to think it is.

But then said evidence would be thrown out in court. Arrest lacked a warrent, making their search in the immediate area illegal, and they didnt have a search warrent.

Not according to the Supreme Court it wouldnt. Apparently evidence siezed regardless of the validity of the arrest is valid now. Even the Virginia Supreme Court disagreed with the SC.

This case does not, at all, say what you think it says. Not even close.

This case does not, at all, say what you think it says. Not even close.

Then im glad.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/23/supremecourt/main4039709.shtml

The guy who commented on this article at the bottom said it best

"Unbelievable! The police will no longer need a ''search warrant'' or even ''probable cause'' to search your home or your car.

They can arrest you for some fictitious crime knowing fully well that the arrest will be thrown out. They then proceed to search your home presumably to learn more about the fictitious crime. But, in doing so, they will turn your house upside down and look for anything to pin on you.

The original theft gets thrown out (it was for fictitious a crime after all) but now the police will RE-ARREST you based on what they found!

The "search" conducted by the police was the fruit of a poisonous tree (the false arrest). This has never been legal.

This ruling just invalidated hundreds of Law and Order episodes."


seems reasonable to me. maybe there are other factors involved(that weren't court level) such as this guy mouthed off to the police. I have always been told the police can arrest you on a traffic stop if you act stupid with them.
And to arrest you in your home they need a arrest warrant which means they had evidence against you to begin with.

This is the kind of shit that happens when we have a crackpot conservative court.
When the court is behind the police state, who is going to protect us from the court?

David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go.
[...]
Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.
Oh of course,why didn't I see it before?! How didn't I see that driving with a suspended license gives probably cause to the belief that you are a coke head?

This case does not, at all, say what you think it says. Not even close.

Since I'm lazy and really don't want to read Scalia's drivel, could you summarize what it actually holds? The way it was described made it sound quite terrible.

This is the kind of shit that happens when we have a crackpot conservative court.
When the court is behind the police state, who is going to protect us from the court?



Except it was a unanimous decision, with a concurring opinion written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



foot, meet mouth

Let me elaborate a little bit. The 4th amendment of the US constitution states that in order to arrest and search someone you need one of two things:

1) a warrant

2) probable cause to believe that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed

In order to get a warrant, you need to convice a judge that there is sufficient articulable suspicious that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed.

That's the basics and it's slightly more complicated than that, but that shall suffice. Generally as a general rule, to stop and arrest someone, and then perform a search, you must, must, MUST have probable cause to believe that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed.

What makes this case weird is that the cop stopped a guy for a traffic offense. Now, before I go further, I must stress, this cop DID have probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. He SAW the guy break the law.

The constitution only requires that you have probable cause to arrest someone. That is all you need. Probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. And this case the cop clearly did.

Where the weird confusing part of this is, is the crime the cop saw the guy commit was a crime that, under the state law, he couldn't be arrested for. The cop was supposed to only issue a summons. So the cop broke STATE law when he arrested the guy for a crime that he should not have been arrested for.

What happened here was NOT that he arrested the guy without probable cause, that would CLEARLY be unconstitutional. He DID have probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, it just wasn't a crime he should have arrested him for.

That's where the confusion comes in, and it is absolutly untrue to claim that police can now arrest someone without probable cause, that's entirely untrue. What the court said was, that if you have probable cause, and you MUST have probable cause, to believe someone has committed a crime, and arrest that person, and search them, and find something, you have not violated the constitution of the united states, even if it was a crime that you should not have arrested him for.

It's actually not that surprising, and, legally, not wrong. All the US constitution requires is "probable cause to believe someone has, is, or is about to commit a crime" And that's what happened here, the cop had legitimate probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime.

It was just a crime he should not be arrested for under STATE law. But state law isn't the US constitution.

Thank you.

Let me elaborate a little bit. The 4th amendment of the US constitution states that in order to arrest and search someone you need one of two things:

1) a warrant

2) probable cause to believe that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed

In order to get a warrant, you need to convice a judge that there is sufficient articulable suspicious that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed.

That's the basics and it's slightly more complicated than that, but that shall suffice. Generally as a general rule, to stop and arrest someone, and then perform a search, you must, must, MUST have probable cause to believe that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed.

What makes this case weird is that the cop stopped a guy for a traffic offense. Now, before I go further, I must stress, this cop DID have probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. He SAW the guy break the law.

The constitution only requires that you have probable cause to arrest someone. That is all you need. Probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. And this case the cop clearly did.

Where the weird confusing part of this is, is the crime the cop saw the guy commit was a crime that, under the state law, he couldn't be arrested for. The cop was supposed to only issue a summons. So the cop broke STATE law when he arrested the guy for a crime that he should not have been arrested for.

What happened here was NOT that he arrested the guy without probable cause, that would CLEARLY be unconstitutional. He DID have probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, it just wasn't a crime he should have arrested him for.

That's where the confusion comes in, and it is absolutly untrue to claim that police can now arrest someone without probable cause, that's entirely untrue. What the court said was, that if you have probable cause, and you MUST have probable cause, to believe someone has committed a crime, and arrest that person, and search them, and find something, you have not violated the constitution of the united states, even if it was a crime that you should not have arrested him for.

It's actually not that surprising, and, legally, not wrong. All the US constitution requires is "probable cause to believe someone has, is, or is about to commit a crime" And that's what happened here, the cop had legitimate probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime.

It was just a crime he should not be arrested for under STATE law. But state law isn't the US constitution.


Thats more or less what I was thinking, I just didnt know what to think about this little part, which you addressed: [quote]Where the weird confusing part of this is, is the crime the cop saw the guy commit was a crime that, under the state law, he couldn't be arrested for. The cop was supposed to only issue a summons. So the cop broke STATE law when he arrested the guy for a crime that he should not have been arrested for.[/qoute].


But, like I said, this isnt the jack booted thug thing the OP thinks it is.

Except it was a unanimous decision, with a concurring opinion written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



foot, meet mouth
Concurring opinion != same opinion of why something is correct.
Scalia and Thomas especially have their heads up their asses. I disagree that driving with a suspended license implies probable cause for carrying cocaine.

Concurring opinion != same opinion of why something is correct.
Scalia and Thomas especially have their heads up their asses. I disagree that driving with a suspended license implies probable cause for carrying cocaine.

But they agree that the decision is the correct one. Considering that unanimous opinions are extremely rare, I'd say this isn't a case of the OMtehG CONZERVATEEVEZ IN MEH CORT!1!1!!1!1

I disagree that driving with a suspended license implies probable cause for carrying cocaine.

What a shock you end up conflating the issues so horribly.

Neo Art, I'm curious whether this person still has a case against the state for wrongful arrest?

That is, whatever penalty is applied to the man for the drugs charge, should the police nonetheless be punished for wrongful arrest?

*snip*

This. Well summed.

Neo Art, I'm curious whether this person still has a case against the state for wrongful arrest?

That is, whatever penalty is applied to the man for the drugs charge, should the police nonetheless be punished for wrongful arrest?

Good question. I'd have to think he does. While his constitutional rights were not violated and he must serve the time he was sentenced to, the arresting officer(s) also broke the law. I would think they could certainly be punished for that without affecting anyone else.

A cop breaks the law, you'd think there'd be two actions: punish the cop AND dismiss the cop.

It's lawbreaking and must be punished, and quite apart from that the cop is incompetent and should be dismissed.

Ah, I'm such an idealist. I'd make a lousy lawyer ;)

Neo Art, I'm curious whether this person still has a case against the state for wrongful arrest?

By "case" I assume you mean whether this individual could bring suit against the officer for wrongful imprisonment. In general he might be able to bring suit against the police officer, and the police department under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However suing the state, nad state agencies is not without difficulty, as state agencies as default have sovereign immunity, unless a particular statute waives that immunity.

In addition, suing the police if often even more difficult, as the police have wide discretion in their actions, however such discretion does not typically include performing illegal activities, heh.

However often pilice may be afforded a layer of protection, even if theyr conduct was technically lawful, if they engaged in that action in good faith and without malicious intent.

So, such a suit would not necessarily be impractical, I certainly see how it could work, however without knowing the particular state law, my answer is a highly technical "maybe"

By "case" I assume you mean whether this individual could bring suit against the officer for wrongful imprisonment. In general he might be able to bring suit against the police officer, and the police department under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However suing the state, nad state agencies is not without difficulty, as state agencies as default have sovereign immunity, unless a particular statute waives that immunity.

In addition, suing the police if often even more difficult, as the police have wide discretion in their actions, however such discretion does not typically include performing illegal activities, heh.

However often pilice may be afforded a layer of protection, even if theyr conduct was technically lawful, if they engaged in that action in good faith and without malicious intent.

So, such a suit would not necessarily be impractical, I certainly see how it could work, however without knowing the particular state law, my answer is a highly technical "maybe"

OK! Thanks.

Kind of depressing, but I was ready for that. They weren't actually holding up a bakers shop, they made a little mistake in the course of their difficult job.

How many decent lawyers does it take to change the law?

Oh, and how many lawbreakers does it take to break a law?

Oh, and ... ah fuck it. *tries to rob a bank*

I think this case and the linked article does well demonstrate that the law is a "tricky thing" (tm) and something that is far more confusing then at first glance.

What happened here, what actually happened here is a bizarre intersection of circumstances in which
1) an arrest was constitutionally valid

2) because the arrest was constitutionally valid, the subsequent search under the Chimel Rule was also valid

3) because the search incident to arrest was performed following a constitutionally valid arrest, evidence found during that search was not fruit of the poisonous tree from a constitutional perspective

4) the arrest was invalid under state law

5) the state's rules of evidence do not preclude, as a matter of state law, evidence found during an illegal arrest

So we have a weird and wacky circumstance in which the arrest was constitutional, and thus his constititional rights weren't violated, illegal under state law, but the state offered no remedy.

At which point you shrug your shoulders, say "sucks to be him" and hope the people of the state lobby the government for more protective state evidence rules.

However this is a far cry from jackbooted thugs grabbing people on the street and going "you're under arrest for...uh...murder, yeah, that's it, murder!" then searching their body, car, home and pets, knowing the original arrest will be thrown out but you can use whatever you find, like some people's comments in the original article seem to suggest it will.

This sort of thing can only come up when police have a legitimate probable cause to believe that you committed a crime, but it's a crime for which the state says you can't be arrested for, and the state has no provision against using evidence found during an illegal arrest.

Narrow circumstances to be sure, and for those worried that the police will use this excuse to arrest everybody for even the most minor infractions knowing they can't be legally arrested, but knowing they can still use any evidence, again I have to point out that this is only applicable in states where the state rules of evience do not preclude evidence from being used when found in an unlawful arrest.

Going around illegally arresting motorists for minor traffic violations is a good way to get a police department sued.

Badly.

Going around illegally arresting motorists for minor traffic violations is a good way to get a police department sued.

Badly.

LOL I love lawyers. Now illegal arresting is a good way to get a police department sued badly, and two posts ago answered that the potential to sue was a highly technical maybe at best.

LOL I love lawyers. Now illegal arresting is a good way to get a police department sued badly, and two posts ago answered that the potential to sue was a highly technical maybe at best.

Sure, because a single incident of an illegal arrest is hard to use as evidence to show bad conduct, and does not necessarily rebut the presumption of good faith.

However repeated conduct of police officers in a jurisdiction arresting people for non arrestable offenses and conducting searches goes beyond good faith honest mistake, and becomes to look a lot like malicious intent.

To sue the police you often need to show not only was their conduct unlawful, but it was done in bad faith. A single incident doesn't necessarily show bad faith. A repeated pattern on the other hand...

14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Whether or not the STATE says it is not an arrest able offense the Federal gov states that it is.

And personally I don't see what the problem is. The guy broke the law, and if during a search a police officer turned up something else that was illegal, then he can be charged with that.

Whether or not the STATE says it is not an arrest able offense the Federal gov states that it is.

Not entirely correct. The federal government has no say what so ever over what is, and is not, an arrestable offense, or indeed, what is and is not an offense at all, at the state level, with the only exception being that a state can not make illegal that which is protected by the constitution.

To sue the police you often need to show not only was their conduct unlawful, but it was done in bad faith. A single incident doesn't necessarily show bad faith. A repeated pattern on the other hand...

Since when is bad faith a legal standard for punishing someone breaking the law? If i murder someone is it ok if its just a single incident and i can show it isnt a repeated pattern? Think the police and the DA will buy that one? If not, then why should we?

Since when is bad faith a legal standard for punishing someone breaking the law?

When the "someone" in question is an agent of the state acting in his official capacity as an agent of the state and has broad sovereign immunity. As a general rule, and this varies from state to state, even if the police do something illegal, as long as they, in good faith, believed what they were doing is right, they're generally protected.

If i murder someone is it ok if its just a single incident and i can show it isnt a repeated pattern? Think the police and the DA will buy that one? If not, then why should we?

By definition, you can not murder someone in good faith.

By definition, you can not murder someone in good faith.
You could kill someone in good faith, if perhaps you thought you were defending the life of an innocent.

You could kill someone in good faith, if perhaps you thought you were defending the life of an innocent.

Ay...you're going to try to talk law again? Please preface further statements with: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, and I have no understanding of how current systems of law work, but if I were the Boss, this is how I'd say the law should be, despite any glaring inconsistencies and illogical outcomes that may result".

Thanks. Save us all a bit of trouble...you go ahead and copy/paste that.

You could kill someone in good faith, if perhaps you thought you were defending the life of an innocent.

But that wouldn't be murder

Oh goody, searching people based on suspicion, and arresting them on charges other than what the law enforcers were originally looking for

sounds like USA is going communist, not too long from now, we'll see some KGB or Stasi in the USA

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/russian-blimps-over-statue-of-liberty-wallpaper.thumbnail.jpg


But in all honesty, it is a good thing, it helps do a bit of removing the weeds out of society - if you can put all lawbreakers into a state where they are too afraid to commit crime in case a random search catches them, the crime rate will drop like a freaking meteor

You could kill someone in good faith, if perhaps you thought you were defending the life of an innocent.

but that wouldn't be murder. Murder is, by definition, the intentional slaying of a human being without legal justification. You can not murder someone in good faith.

You can kill in good faith, and the law recognizes that by providing a defense, such as defense of self, or defense of others.

Oh goody, searching people based on suspicion, and arresting them on charges other than what the law enforcers were originally looking for

So you haven't actually read the thread.

What a shock....:rolleyes:

But that wouldn't be murder
If you assassinated Hitler before WW2 started, you would still be a murderer.

You could kill someone in good faith, if perhaps you thought you were defending the life of an innocent.

Sure. It happens.

You don't think the second time you did that, it would be viewed with more suspicion?

============

If you assassinated Hitler before WW2 started, you would still be a murderer.

AND a hero. Neat-oh!

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Someone (the OP) apparently has serious and debilitating problems with reading comprehension.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

Someone (the OP) apparently has serious and debilitating problems with reading comprehension.

All you have demonstrated is that you can quote a single sentence then throw around an insult without adding a single thing to the commentary. Even our resident lawyer explained that this is a fairly complex decision related to some fairly obscure issues. But im glad you can cite one sentence and think you have cleared everything up and then throw around an insult to boot, as most scholars require many dozens of pages to delve into the intracacies of a SC decision. Gratz on that.

All you have demonstrated is that you can quote a single sentence then throw around an insult without adding a single thing to the commentary. Even our resident lawyer explained that this is a fairly complex decision related to some fairly obscure issues. But im glad you can cite one sentence and think you have cleared everything up and then throw around an insult to boot, as most scholars require many dozens of pages to delve into the intracacies of a SC decision. Gratz on that.


A unanimous ruling in favor of the status quo against a novel challenge hardly calls for the shrill and unreasonable panic in the tone of the title and OP.


If it were cause for particular controversy I suspect the ruling might not have been 9-0.

A unanimous ruling in favor of the status quo against a novel challenge hardly calls for the shrill and unreasonable panic in the tone of the title and OP.


If it were cause for particularly controversy I suspect the ruling might not have been 9-0.

Odd that the Virginia Supreme Court felt the opposite way for such a clearly cut and dry case. But im sure you took that into consideration with your in depth and thorough analysis. And now apparently im shrill and unreasonable. The hits keep on coming.

Odd that the Virginia Supreme Court felt the opposite way for such a clearly cut and dry case. But im sure you took that into consideration with your in depth and thorough analysis. And now apparently im shrill and unreasonable. The hits keep on coming.

That's correct.

You don't think the second time you did that, it would be viewed with more suspicion?

Not necessarily: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting