• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Minority Report in real life?

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I'm not up to speed on that area of 4A law.

Is this really new ground? Or, just the application of existing government disregard for the 4th Amendment to a new set of facts?

I guess it will really boil down to whether a reliable informant supplying sufficient information rises to probable cause?

On the other hand, I think there is case law about getting a warrant when there is time and you don't have any excuses like evidence being destroyed or moved in the meantime. So, why didn't the cops get the warrant? A little concerned their informant wouldn't stand up to scrutiny? Was a real magistrate working that afternoon, and the cops figured he/she might refuse the warrant application?

Hmmmm. I wonder.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I'm not up to speed on that area of 4A law.

Is this really new ground? Or, just the application of existing government disregard for the 4th Amendment to a new set of facts?

I guess it will really boil down to whether a reliable informant supplying sufficient information rises to probable cause?

On the other hand, I think there is case law about getting a warrant when there is time and you don't have any excuses like evidence being destroyed or moved in the meantime. So, why didn't the cops get the warrant? A little concerned their informant wouldn't stand up to scrutiny? Was a real magistrate working that afternoon, and the cops figured he/she might refuse the warrant application?

Hmmmm. I wonder.

Yeah, I don't know. I don't really understand what exactly was ruled on. To me it seems like they basically "allowed" the warrantless search, which to me seems totally separate (and a lot worse) than the whole "informant" aspect of the case... But, I don't know that much about it. I know I don't like it though.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
I don't understand the implications of the ruling. I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred and not one of the state's many mala prohibita. If proper procedure wasn't followed, and the suspect did not actually do anything wrong, then the cop should be fired and possibly punished for a civil rights violation.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I don't understand the implications of the ruling. I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred and not one of the state's many mala prohibita. If proper procedure wasn't followed, and the suspect did not actually do anything wrong, then the cop should be fired and possibly punished for a civil rights violation.

"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v US 1948.

I found it a few years ago at one of my favorite websites: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/

There are a few angles on suppression of government evidence.

From one angle, you could say the court gets to make its own determination whether its willing to go along with violations of the constitution. If a judge felt it was unfair to introduce evidence obtained in violation of the 4A, I can't really see compelling him to go along with the violation. In which his remedies might be a little limited. He could throw out the whole case. Or, he could refuse to allow the just evidence that violated the 4A.

Personally, given the rate at which courts have been finding "loopholes" in the 4A, I don't think the latter is all that much of a concern. My suspicion would tend more towards government knowing full well the revolutionary spirit in America was fed heartily by suspicionless general warrants by the kings agents. The courts aren't willing to create a firestorm by eating away the whole 4A at once.

But, the most important angle is "who is the correct target?" Supermoderator Mike pointed this out a few years ago. The correct target is not the judges who suppress evidence or let off crooks on "technicalities." The correct targets are the cops and prosecutors who didn't play by the rules. If a judge lets a genuine crook off on a techicality, that's what he's supposed to do. It was the police or prosecutor who violated 4A, due process, etc, who let that criminal off.

Those "technicalities" are your rights. Your Fourth Amendment right. Your right against self-incrimination. Your due process rights.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred...

It doesn't help justice in THAT EXACT CASE, but it must be so for the long term freedoms in this country.

The only thing that sometimes stops cops from committing violations of these freedoms is not wanting to have the evidence ruled as inadmissible. They can play a game with prosecutors and premeditate getting evidence through an illegal search and then arguing that they would have eventually found it in a legal search later, even if just getting the one crucial piece that makes a difference ruled as admissible, while the rest is ruled as inadmissible.

We need MORE damning evidence thrown out so as to curb this behavior even more so.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
It doesn't help justice in THAT EXACT CASE, but it must be so for the long term freedoms in this country.

The only thing that sometimes stops cops from committing violations of these freedoms is not wanting to have the evidence ruled as inadmissible. They can play a game with prosecutors and premeditate getting evidence through an illegal search and then arguing that they would have eventually found it in a legal search later, even if just getting the one crucial piece that makes a difference ruled as admissible, while the rest is ruled as inadmissible.

We need MORE damning evidence thrown out so as to curb this behavior even more so.

Basically, we NEED more citizens, political leaders, residents, peace officers, prosecutors, and judges that strive based upon principles and personal integrity to NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN ANY MANNER or allowing violations to occur instead of just crossing the boundary by just an inch because that is just a little violation!

First edit--- added "Constitutional"
second edit--- added "political leaders" to the list
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It doesn't help justice in THAT EXACT CASE, but it must be so for the long term freedoms in this country.

The only thing that sometimes stops cops from committing violations of these freedoms is not wanting to have the evidence ruled as inadmissible. They can play a game with prosecutors and premeditate getting evidence through an illegal search and then arguing that they would have eventually found it in a legal search later, even if just getting the one crucial piece that makes a difference ruled as admissible, while the rest is ruled as inadmissible.

We need MORE damning evidence thrown out so as to curb this behavior even more so.

Punish the offending LEO; don't reward the criminal!
 

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
There have been so many threads closed for "cop bashing". Who in the hell are the ones enFORCing the increasingly egregious laws?????


EnFORCErs for The State choose their "job", defend it, promote it, etc.


The State entities across this country whether Federal, state, or local are 99 times out of a hundred destroying Individual Constitutionally protected RIGHTS. They couldn't do that with out their enFORCErs.
 
Top