SCOTUS: Illegal evidence is OK to uphold a conviction

[Rob377]

Anything other than a muzzle loader was foreign to our founders so they couldn't have possibly thought that the 2nd amendment applied to modern day weapons. Great argument you got there.

That's exactly the point. Technology changes and the substance of the rights changes. In 1787 "arms" didn't mean machine guns because machine guns didn't exist. They had no concept of a machine gun. Today, I would argue it does. So the actual nitty gritty substance of the right that "never changes" according to 88GT.....changed.

...

So what exactly did the 4th mean when it was written, and what exactly does it mean now? I wasn't aware that it had changed.

Then maybe you should take some law classes and some history classes and learn a bit more before presuming to lecture others. Just a thought.

I think you don't understand my point at all. The existence of an exclusionary rule is redundant. If the state or is agents followed that rule they way they should, there'd be no need to introduce superfluous concepts like exclusion. All evidence would be properly and legally obtained.

In a perfect world, sure. But note that the framers did not provide a remedy for violations of it. which brings us to the next point....

And your point is irrelevant. Providing a system to determining disputes arising out of law doesn't change the law. But that's what the courts are doing these days. Is that what you think their purpose is?

Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hornadylnl]

the way I read it, i can hide my personal papers or property under a freaking rock in my yard and its just as safe from illegal search as anywhere else. also they didnt have cars but they had carriages.

But they didn't specifically state "carriage" in the fourth so they're fair game. Just like private gun ownership is subject to the king's men because it say militia, not citizen.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm sure many who are on the other side of this issue on here would think their same argument regarding the 4th is a terrible argument regarding the 2nd.

 

[E5RANGER375]

That's exactly the point. Technology changes and the substance of the rights changes. In 1787 "arms" didn't mean machine guns because machine guns didn't exist. They had no concept of a machine gun. Today, I would argue it does. So the actual nitty gritty substance of the right that "never changes" according to 88GT.....changed.



Then maybe you should take some law classes and some history classes and learn a bit more before presuming to lecture others. Just a thought.




In a perfect world, sure. But note that the framers did not provide a remedy for violations of it. which brings us to the next point....




Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well since you have it all figured out it sounds like your ready to be fitted for your black robe.

 

[jsharmon7]

 

[E5RANGER375]

But they didn't specifically state "carriage" in the fourth so they're fair game. Just like private gun ownership is subject to the king's men because it say militia, not citizen.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm sure many who are on the other side of this issue on here would think their same argument regarding the 4th is a terrible argument regarding the 2nd.

its just so sad that we have gotten to this point. generations of americans have FAILED. they have trashed the republic and it will cause other generations to water the tree of liberty. its all very sad.

 

[hornadylnl]

That's exactly the point. Technology changes and the substance of the rights changes. In 1787 "arms" didn't mean machine guns because machine guns didn't exist. They had no concept of a machine gun. Today, I would argue it does. So the actual nitty gritty substance of the right that "never changes" according to 88GT.....changed.



Then maybe you should take some law classes and some history classes and learn a bit more before presuming to lecture others. Just a thought.




In a perfect world, sure. But note that the framers did not provide a remedy for violations of it. which brings us to the next point....




Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you're either saying that we aren't guaranteed the right to own modern day weapons or that we are. If we are, then the text of the 2nd guarantees us to arms, whatever they may be at any given time, not only what was available in the 1700's.

If the text of the 2nd was meant to be generic for arms and not specifically muzzle loaders, would they have not used the same reasoning for the 4th?

Do you believe that the second amendment guarantees your right to own an evil assault rifle? If yes, why would you not believe that the 4th guarantees you the right against unreasonable searches of your vehicle?

 

[KG1]

Excellent post.


What was so important that these officers couldn't wait for a warrant? The people were detained and could no longer pose a threat. I would think it would be entirely unreasonable to try to do a search while the accused was not detained. Once detained, why such a rush? How is it an officer safety issue if the guy is cuffed and locked into a squad car? Couldn't any reasonable person question the "officer safety" aspect of this case?[/QUOTE]
No they can't because if they did they would be accused of not reading the article and the applicable law.

 

[88GT]

That's exactly the point. Technology changes and the substance of the rights changes. In 1787 "arms" didn't mean machine guns because machine guns didn't exist. They had no concept of a machine gun. Today, I would argue it does. So the actual nitty gritty substance of the right that "never changes" according to 88GT.....changed.

We're going off-topic with this one, but are you really saying you think that the 2nd is limiting, and the state gets to determine what is an acceptable arm to keep and bear?

Then maybe you should take some law classes and some history classes and learn a bit more before presuming to lecture others. Just a thought.

Here's another: maybe you should at least try to answer my question. How has the 4th changed?

In a perfect world, sure. But note that the framers did not provide a remedy for violations of it. which brings us to the next point....

By that logic, then a law passed by Congress tomorrow making Islam the state religion would be fine with you?

I'm just trying to understand.

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm behind the curve in this thread. Are we arguing the validity of the case in the OP, or has the conversation led elsewhere?

 

[Rob377]

well since you have it all figured out it sounds like your ready to be fitted for your black robe.

I was just about to say the same to you, Hornady and 88GT.

Y'all should write down y'all's version of "unreasonable" in every possible situation and publish it, so they don't screw it up.

FTR: I recognize that just about every person has a somewhat different definition of what an "unreasonable search and seizure." Therefore, I'm not taking this personally and I hope y'all are not either. (though I suspect otherwise)

 

[E5RANGER375]

I was just about to say the same to you, Hornady and 88GT.

Y'all should write down y'all's version of "unreasonable" in every possible situation and publish it, so they don't screw it up.

FTR: I recognize that just about every person has a somewhat different definition of what an "unreasonable search and seizure." Therefore, I'm not taking this personally and I hope y'all are not either. (though I suspect otherwise)

nope the govt would kill of people like us if we were judges because we would enforce the constitution instead of trying to rule from the bench of personal or political opinion and back scratching. if i was a judge there would be a lot of unhappy govt agencies and cops. i would immediately rule many agencies unconstitutional. also no more no knock warrants or police SWAT teams.

 

[UncleMike]

I'm behind the curve in this thread. Are we arguing the validity of the case in the OP, or has the conversation led elsewhere?

Cmon JS!!
Since when does the conversation stay on track here??
Duuhhh........

 

[Rob377]

We're going off-topic with this one, but are you really saying you think that the 2nd is limiting, and the state gets to determine what is an acceptable arm to keep and bear?

I have no idea where that came from, aside from the typical gun-board response of screaming "anti-gun troll" at the slightest disagreement.

Here's another: maybe you should at least try to answer my question. How has the 4th changed?

already covered one major change: the exclusionary rule. Didn't exist as part of the 4th Amendment until 1914. Now it does, contrary to your assertion that it should have never changed in any way from how it was at the time it was written.

So, if you want the 4th Amendment the same as it was in 1789, this guy in this case still gets convicted. (assuming for the sake of argument it was for a federal crime, since the BOR didn't apply to the states at all in 1789)

Changes I like = constitutional and changes I don't like= unconstitutional isn't very persuasive.

By that logic, then a law passed by Congress tomorrow making Islam the state religion would be fine with you?

I'm just trying to understand.

sure doesn't look like it. Looks like you're trying to create a bunch of strawmen to attack instead. Go for it, nothing I'm gonna type will stop you.

Again, no idea where that is coming from.

But to indulge the strawman, the whole point of judicial review is to invalidate stuff like that.

 

[Rob377]

nope the govt would kill of people like us if we were judges because we would enforce the constitution instead of trying to rule from the bench of personal or political opinion and back scratching. if i was a judge there would be a lot of unhappy govt agencies and cops. i would immediately rule many agencies unconstitutional. also no more no knock warrants or police SWAT teams.

If I were a Justice, I would write a concurring opinion with agreeing you 110% on the no-knocks and the militarization of the police.

 

[rambone]

I'm behind the curve in this thread. Are we arguing the validity of the case in the OP, or has the conversation led elsewhere?

You should read the whole thread before commenting. That would be refreshing to see.

You sound as if you've actually read this decision and formed your own opinion. That's very refreshing to see.

 

[jsharmon7]

You should read the whole thread before commenting. That would be refreshing.

I want to be one of the cool kids that gives his opinion without taking the time to read and comprehend the material. It's fun to blindly believe the headline because it fits in with what I currenty believe to be true about the subject. In this case, though, I just lost track of where we were at. Cut me some slack.

 

[88GT]

I have no idea where that came from, aside from the typical gun-board response of screaming "anti-gun troll" at the slightest disagreement.

It came from your statement that the 2nd amendment didn't take into account the type and scope of firearms available to the people when it was written. But there's no point in bringing that up if you believe that the authors believed such considerations to be moot. IOW, only if you believe that the 2nd is narrowly applied to a particular subset of firearms, would such a statement have relevance to the meaning and intent of the 2nd. Furthermore, the logical extension of such a viewpoint is that the 2nd CAN be limited by the state and such limitations CAN be made on the basis of firearm type (and capacity and power).

Why would you introduce a point that doesn't apply to the discussion unless you were introducing to illustrate your thought process or "big picture" view on something?

already covered one major change: the exclusionary rule. Didn't exist as part of the 4th Amendment until 1914. Now it does, contrary to your assertion that it should have never changed in any way from how it was at the time it was written.

First, the rights of the people do NOT change. Just because the courts ruled I have no right to protect myself from the unlawful entry of law enforcement doesn't mean that right doesn't exist (used as an example). My right as a human to protect my liberties supersedes any man-made law of the land. The BoR isn't defining our rights. It's merely limiting the power/authority of the state in an effort to protect them.

A court decision changing the way the state acts with regard to those rights does not change my rights. Nor does it change the wording, meaning, or intent of the restrictions (the BoR) themselves. It only changes how the state chooses to abide by them. In essence, court decisions are self-regulation, the fox guarding the henhouse. Sometimes they get it right. Lately, it seems they don't.

Second, it did exist. It was part and parcel of the meaning of the 4th. Just because it wasn't specifically stated doesn't mean it didn't exist. To go back to your 2A example of different firearms. The founders didn't specifically state that the 2nd should be applied to all firearms regardless of their capacity, power, looks, or action. But is there any doubt that that is what they intended?

So by extension, even though the 4th doesn't explicitly state that evidence obtained in violation of the restrictions of the 4th should not be used, there can be no reason in having a 4th at all if it were acceptable to use what was illegally obtained. Surely you don't believe the authors would have simply suggested the injured party seek redress in civil court and that would be the end of it.

Clarifying or re-affirming an implied fact is not a change.

So, if you want the 4th Amendment the same as it was in 1789, this guy in this case still gets convicted. (assuming for the sake of argument it was for a federal crime, since the BOR didn't apply to the states at all in 1789)

I'm less concerned with the conviction status of the man, than with the idea that the courts can change the definition of what constitutes acceptable behavior of the state with regard to the restrictions imposed upon it by the Constitution. The fox deciding which rules it will enforce in the guarding of the henhouse makes me uneasy. Which is why I originally said the only acceptable standard is the 4th itself.

That does naturally lead to a discussion on just exactly what constitutes "unreasonable," but as that is not what has been the basis of your argument, I assume that it is also moot to this discussion.

Changes I like = constitutional and changes I don't like= unconstitutional isn't very persuasive.

Since the exclusionary principle is not an actual change, I'm going to ask again what changes have been made to the 4th amendment. Not what rulings have the courts done to change the way they comply with the 4th amendment. That is entirely different. What way has the 4th changed? Am I no longer free from unreasonable searches? Can the state abscond with my personal effects at will?

sure doesn't look like it. Looks like you're trying to create a bunch of strawmen to attack instead. Go for it, nothing I'm gonna type will stop you.

Again, no idea where that is coming from.

But to indulge the strawman, the whole point of judicial review is to invalidate stuff like that.

Fundamental rules of logic. If you make a claim based on a process of logic, then that process should be equally valid when applied to other instances. Furthermore, all conclusions drawn from the that process must be equally acceptable.

Ergo, if you substantiate an interpretation of a law based on a court decision, then that substantiation must be applicable to all other laws. So if you think the courts can "change" an amendment and act accordingly, then you necessarily would have to accept the idea that tomorrow Congress could institute a national religion and be okay with it. The unspoken assumption here is that the courts wouldn't invalidate it based on its unConstitutionality.

And it's not a straw man, because that is the very heart of the matter I am discussing: the court's don't get to change the rights of men. They don't get to change the rules that were imposed on them for the express purpose of protecting those rights either.

 

[Benny]

I was just about to say the same to you, Hornady and 88GT.

Y'all should write down y'all's version of "unreasonable" in every possible situation and publish it, so they don't screw it up.

FTR: I recognize that just about every person has a somewhat different definition of what an "unreasonable search and seizure." Therefore, I'm not taking this personally and I hope y'all are not either. (though I suspect otherwise)

Sorry to get off-topic, but when I read this post, I pictured the person saying it wearing a straw hat, corn cob pipe and overalls...Am I the only one?

That's just so many "y'all's" for such a short post.

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

I'll say it again, don't do anything wrong, and you never have to worry about any evidence being used against you.

There are something like 10,000 offenses that qualify as felonies throughout the US. I don't know about you but I'm sure as not gonna bet 20 to life that I've never unknowingly committed any of them.

 

[j706]

And just think this whole thing could have been avoided by simple wording. It is called inventory. Heck the driver was drunk! We can't have convicted felons accuse us of stealing the 50k they had in the car now can we. Hook the damn car,do your inventory, develop your probable cause, take the idiots to jail and file your charges (In this case federal charges). Complicated ain't it?