Bye bye, 4th amendment
-
linkQUOTEThe conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.QUOTEHerring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.
Glad we kept a liberal majority off that bench. I'd hate to see our judges legislate from it. -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Jan 14 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Glad we kept a liberal majority off that bench. I'd hate to see our judges legislate from it.
Glad we can make generalizing statements. I'm sure there'd be nothing to complain about if there was a liberal majority.
Anyway, doesn't this fall under the good faith clause? -
The common generalization is that liberal judges are bad because they are "activist judges" who misinterpret the constitution. The implication being made is that judges who aren't liberal judges can somehow avoid this folly. This shoots that implication to shit. I'm not trying to imply that liberal judges are good judges and conservative judges are bad judges. That would be ludicrous.
And no, not as I understand it. The full faith and credit clause is about State's respecting each other and sharing and accepting information, isn't it? Maybe you mean a different clause I'm less familiar with.
The problem here is that the warrant was invalid, so the arrest should be invalid, no arrest means no legal search was conducted. The justices all admitted as much. But apparently this is no longer grounds for suppression of evidence.
This is a little tin foily, I know, but check it:
Officer: Hey dispatch, is there a warrant for Jim Jacobson?
Dispatch: Lemme see, um.... no.
Officer: Yeah? Cool I'll take him into custody.
Later
Judge: So there was no warrant?
Lawyer: No you're honor.
Judge: Did you act in good faith under the honest belief that there was a warrant for this man's arrest?
Officer: Yes.
Lawyer: So the burden of proof now lies with the defendant, to prove... somehow... that there could be no way this mistake was made on good faith?
Judge: That's correct.
Lawyer and Defendant: Fuck that noise.
Me: yeah... fuck that noise. -
Well. I learned that it wasn't a clause. It is a court ruling. Surprisingly, it was under the Burger Supreme Court (do a bit of scrolling, under history) that this came about.QUOTEThe Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was a constitutional right (Roe v. Wade), reached controversial rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and held that the implementation of the death penalty in many states was unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia), but that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[4]
-
"decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984"
how... quaint.
If I'd been alive and self-aware then I would've been pissed about those decisions too. But I guess the fact that it still comes all the way to the SCotUS these days is encouraging. My outrage will be delayed until further notice. -
It's one more thing you can blame the Baby Boomers for.
and possibly gen x.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!