• 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.

Now a future search warrant is OK? Ohio is going down the tubes

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Did the Framers intend the exclusionary rule? Even the rule's most ardent supporters admit that they did not. Virtually no one doubts that, until the twentieth century, criminals did not go free, as Judge (later Justice) Benjamin N. Cardozo put it, "because the constable blundered." People v. Defore (1926). The criminal would have been convicted, and the offending constable would have been liable as a tort-feasor for trespassing upon a person's privacy without proper authority or cause.


The central argument in favor of exclusion is that it is necessary to give the Fourth Amendment real, as opposed to theoretical, meaning. If police officers were allowed to offend the Constitution with impunity (which, it is alleged, they would if a defendant could be convicted on tainted evidence), the Fourth Amendment would be a "mere form of words." This argument presupposes that illegal searches and seizures are deterred by the prospect of exclusion. If the evidence cannot be used at trial, what is the point of seizing it?


http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/144/searches-and-seizures
A false presupposition as it stands today. Citizens are offended by cops who don't give a rip about our rights and will let a judge work it out. The offense that the citizen endures can never be made right, the citizen can never be made whole. The state throwing public money at those violated by state agents does not correct deviant behavior of state agents acted out under the guise of official state business.

The real irony is that the state is the only entity that is permitted to define reasonable. Thus, the existence of "reasonable gun restrictions" enacted by the state and being held as reasonable by the state. Changing elected officials does not address the now lawfulness of anti-gun laws due to the meddling of the courts on this issue.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
A false presupposition as it stands today. Citizens are offended by cops who don't give a rip about our rights and will let a judge work it out. The offense that the citizen endures can never be made right, the citizen can never be made whole. The state throwing public money at those violated by state agents does not correct deviant behavior of state agents acted out under the guise of official state business.

The real irony is that the state is the only entity that is permitted to define reasonable. Thus, the existence of "reasonable gun restrictions" enacted by the state and being held as reasonable by the state. Changing elected officials does not address the now lawfulness of anti-gun laws due to the meddling of the courts on this issue.
Interesting.

Before the exclusionary rule the cops could just walk in and search your house then jail you. You could/would be convicted and sent to jail. While in jail you civilly sue the cop for trespassing.

Now, if a motion is made on any part of the stop,seizure, or anything else they want, and if its granted then the whole case can be tossed and your free then you can still sue.

Am I understanding what was cited?

If I am anyone care to explain how the exclusionary rule isn't a good thing for citizens?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Perhaps you are not considering on the role of jury members.

Charles
I reiterate:
A false presupposition as it stands today. Citizens are offended by cops who don't give a rip about our rights and will let a judge work it out. The offense that the citizen endures can never be made right, the citizen can never be made whole. The state throwing public money at those violated by state agents does not correct deviant behavior of state agents acted out under the guise of official state business.
My point is that all sorts of unpleasant things can happen to a citizen when a cop gets it wrong, death being the ultimate offense. The laws have evolved to remove the offending cop as far away from accountability as possible.
The criminal would have been convicted, and the offending constable would have been liable as a tort-feasor for trespassing upon a person's privacy without proper authority or cause.
I am unreasonable in the eyes of the state because I desire that a cop who breaks the law by violating a citizen's rights be immediately disbarred from public service, no matter the triviality of the offense. This will be the only way to get a cop to think, investigate, then act if needs be.

Far too often cops act, then think, and then hope, if there is some doubt later, that the system/law will shield them for screwing up. To a large extent they are shielded, where I enjoy no such privilege.

As to the exclusionary rule, of course it is good for the common man, but why must we rely upon that which only comes into play after the violation occurs? The common man is arrested and possibly confined, subjected to the financial, social, professional consequences of the unwarranted violation, those can never be made right...ever.

The common man should not have had to endure the offense in the first place if cops knew, they would be held to account personally for their unlawful acts.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I am unreasonable in the eyes of the state because I desire that a cop who breaks the law by violating a citizen's rights be immediately disbarred from public service, no matter the triviality of the offense.

Respectfully, that position is unreasonable in my eyes as well. It is the equivalent of saying that drivers should lose their license to drive on public roads over every traffic infraction, no matter how trivial.

This will be the only way to get a cop to think, investigate, then act if needs be

The more likely effect is that cops will do nothing at all. Loss of a job/career for making any trivial mistake encourages people to do nothing that might result in a mistake. And that tends to encourage people to do nothing.

Some would be ok with that because they actually believe the police serve no legitimate purpose. Others think their gun is a talisman that will keep all evil at bay.

Reasonable, thinking, sensible men recognize the benefits of police.

Abuses need to be curtailed. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Respectfully, that position is unreasonable in my eyes as well. It is the equivalent of saying that drivers should lose their license to drive on public roads over every traffic infraction, no matter how trivial.

The more likely effect is that cops will do nothing at all. Loss of a job/career for making any trivial mistake encourages people to do nothing that might result in a mistake. And that tends to encourage people to do nothing.

Some would be ok with that because they actually believe the police serve no legitimate purpose. Others think their gun is a talisman that will keep all evil at bay.

Reasonable, thinking, sensible men recognize the benefits of police.

Abuses need to be curtailed. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Charles
Back-handed insult noted.

There is a point system in MO for driving violations, too many trivial moving violations can disbar a citizen from driving for some period of time. Is their a point system for cops who violate a citizen's rights? A point system for cops who violate the law? I am not aware of such a system.

We will remain on opposite sides of this issue, no big deal.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -


That is what is says, yes.

Here is the long drawn out way that this should be read...


"The people possess the RIGHT to be secure in their persons AND their homes AND their papers AND their effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall be issued, UNLESS there is probable cause which is supported by Oath or affirmation, and specifically describes the place and/or the persons and/or things to be searched and/or seized."

How hard is that to understand? The Bill of Rights is written in a simple to understand format. "Leave the PEOPLE alone unless you have PROOF of a wrong doing. IF you have proof, then get a warrant which clearly spells out exactly who and/or what is to be searched and/or seized." ONLY then may you proceed. Period! Barring any of that, BUGGER OFF!


There was a law that required a warrant to searches and seizures. That is the reason the 4th amendment was written the way it was. It was not to allow warrant-less searches but to make sure that a judge reviews them first. Fat lot of good that does today with judges seeming to sign-off on almost any warrant on their desks.

Police officers of the crown could write a warrant on scene to search for anything, search anyone, and arrest anyone.

The 4th Amendment was to prevent police officers from writing their own authorization to search/seize anyone or anything. Per the 4th Amendment they are supposed to explain to a judge under oath explaining why such a warrant should be issued.

The exception has been the rule of hot pursuit and breaking the law in view of an officer. This plain view rule for a warrant-less search is BS but it would be reasonable cause for a warrant to be issued.

Maybe that is how it should be written. But it isn't. And courts going back some 200 years have held that the 4th amendment does not, actually protect against searches or seizures that are "reasonable" even in the absence of a warrant.

SNIP

CITE. TROLL
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
CITE. TROLL

I've removed the color coding in your post to expose all the words you actually posted.

With that, either you are trolling, or you have a terrible memory. You are the OP who posted this story about this Suprem Court Ruling (HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA) in the "Supreme Court rules an officer’s misunderstanding of a law is protected" thread.

Go read two pages into that ruling and you'll find this hidden treasure:

"More than two centuries ago, this Court held that reasonable mistakes of law, like those of fact, could justify a certificate of probable cause. United States v. Riddle, 5 Cranch 311, 313. That holding was reiterated in numerous 19th-century decisions. Although Riddle was not a Fourth Amendment case, it explained the concept of probable cause, which this Court has said carried the same “fixed and well known meaning” in the Fourth Amendment, Brinegar, supra, at 175, and n. 14, and no subsequent decision of this Court has undermined that understanding."

Now, if you want to call me a troll, be man enough to do it openly. You may not like the way the court has applied the 4th amendment. But it apparently has been applying it that way since 1809, or all of 18 years after the 4th amendment was ratified. I have a sneaky suspicion that the court in 1809 had a little better understanding of the original intent of constitutional language ratified in 1809, than you do.

But whatever makes you feel good.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I've removed the color coding in your post to expose all the words you actually posted.

...

Charles
The NC law clearly states that the tail lights must work but Heien skipped the first three section of the law to try and wiggle out of his criminality by using a section, d I think, that seemed to address much older vehicles where tail lights may not have been standard equipment.

As this "reasonable mistakes of law" applies to OC, how many times does it take a cop (cop shop) to learn that OC is legal and not disorderly conduct, and in NC not GOTTOTP, even though cops knew/know this they continue to claim "I thought this that or the other" where the law is concerned. Heck, don't know where, one of my past post somewhere, but some cop shop has already put Heien out to the boys in blue and one cop (cop shop) has used it already.

Heien was a loser case for Heien from the get go. The judges going there did the RKBA q-munity no favors.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No problem...you injected Heien into this thread.

I provided a requested citation to a case citing 200+ years of precedence regarding the 4th amendment. Context matters, my friend.

There is another thread, the one I linked to, where Heien might be on topic.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I provided a requested citation to a case citing 200+ years of precedence regarding the 4th amendment. Context matters, my friend.

There is another thread, the one I linked to, where Heien might be on topic.

Charles
The OP is about a dude who cites a "misunderstanding" of the law, a 4A violation (seizure/search), not sure how much more relevant Heien (seizure/search) can be to the op. Unless of course the op 4A relief request by the child molester had nothing to do with cops.

A exception was cited by the cops and the child molester tried to convince the court that the cops did not know the law proper like. He failed, as well he should. The cops got it right by current case law, don't make it right. It is what it is.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Interesting.

Before the exclusionary rule the cops could just walk in and search your house then jail you. You could/would be convicted and sent to jail. While in jail you civilly sue the cop for trespassing.

Now, if a motion is made on any part of the stop,seizure, or anything else they want, and if its granted then the whole case can be tossed and your free then you can still sue.

Am I understanding what was cited?

If I am anyone care to explain how the exclusionary rule isn't a good thing for citizens?

NO that is make believe. There is no allowance in the constitution for you just walk in search and jail before the exclusionary rule.

There simply is no authority stated that allows that in the constitution.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
NO that is make believe. There is no allowance in the constitution for you just walk in search and jail before the exclusionary rule.

There simply is no authority stated that allows that in the constitution.
Actually it was already pointed out in the constitution that you cited BTW, that reasonable searches and seizures are allowed.

Basic grasp of English language says that...
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Actually it was already pointed out in the constitution that you cited BTW, that reasonable searches and seizures are allowed.

Basic grasp of English language says that...

The context at the time of writing is being ignored by those such as yourself.

Also since the English language is not a stagnant language, the meanings of words change, it is not so plain anymore.

In context, no search could be done without a warrant period. The request for a warrant had to be a reasonable request before it would be issued and executed.

literally
2 informal — used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
The context at the time of writing is being ignored by those such as yourself.

Also since the English language is not a stagnant language, the meanings of words change, it is not so plain anymore.

In context, no search could be done without a warrant period. The request for a warrant had to be a reasonable request before it would be issued and executed.
Cite please. Thanks
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Actually it was already pointed out in the constitution that you cited BTW, that reasonable searches and seizures are allowed.

Basic grasp of English language says that...

I seem to grasp the language way better than yourself.

No where in there does it give you the power of being the arbiter of whats reasonable, or to walk in and do what you want. You are reading into it something that isn't there.

And then to boot the last part specifically mentions what needs to be done in order to perform "reasonable seizure". There is a specifically written qualifier written into the sentence.

Its interesting you think the amendment written with writs of assistance in mind and how to prevent "cops" from entering and seizing what ever they decided to be reasonable allows exactly that.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I seem to grasp the language way better than yourself.

No where in there does it give you the power of being the arbiter of whats reasonable, or to walk in and do what you want. You are reading into it something that isn't there.

And then to boot the last part specifically mentions what needs to be done in order to perform "reasonable seizure". There is a specifically written qualifier written into the sentence.

Its interesting you think the amendment written with writs of assistance in mind and how to prevent "cops" from entering and seizing what ever they decided to be reasonable allows exactly that.
I'm open to cites to the contrary. We are both reading the same sentence. I pointed out the break in the sentence the comma and "and".

Your response was it doesn't really mean that. Ok cool. Have a cite?

We agree that its protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Key wore is unreasonable. Why throw out the specificity of saying unreasonable? Your claiming any search and seizure requires a warrant. Well..... That's not what it says my friend. Of it specifically states unreasonable then the inverse applies unless otherwise noted.

Also you keep mentioning "context" and "not what they meant". Sorry can you point out the astrix on the sentence that points to a footer explaining the context or what they "really" meant?

Finally, you say its not the cops job to determine the first level of reasonableness. Have a cite to back that up? I ask because I'm pretty sure that just about every state (if not all) has a court case or two stating otherwise and I'm certain there's fed case law on it too. EVERYTHING is based on what the cop thought reasonable at the time. Then then the courts look later and determine if its reasonable or not. Never heard of a case where a citizen said " this stop is unreasonable im leaving" when the cop decided other wise.
 
Top