SCOTUS: Illegal evidence is OK to uphold a conviction

[E5RANGER375]

no criminals ever do anything wrong. its always their friend or that one guy, that they cant remeber their name but theyve known them their whole life.

 

[88GT]

The whole purpose of the common law system is for courts to determine what "unreasonable" searches and seizures are. That has been CENTRAL to my argument.

For example, your version of "reasonable," which requires a warrant, no matter what, was NOT the people who wrote the 4th Amendment's version of "reasonable."

In 1789, the same Congress that ratified the 4th Amendment also authorized Naval inspectors to search for and to seize any goods that they suspected violated customs laws. See Act of July 31, 1789, ch. 5, § 24, 1 Stat. 29

In 1792, they gave Federal agents the same arrest powers as state officials, NO warrant required. See Act of May 2, 1792, ch. 28, § 9.

In 1814, a court in Wakely v. Hart, 6 Binn. 316 said "it is nowhere said, that there shall be no arrest [i.e., seizure] without warrant. To have said so would have endangered the safety of society."

If there were an unreasonable search, the victim's remedy was a civil trespass action against the offender, NOT that the evidence would be excluded in the criminal trial. (for an interesting history of how the 4th was enforced by the founders and framers, see Amazon.com: ENFORCING THE 4TH AMENDMENT (American Legal and Constitutional History) (9780824083038): Wilson: Books) See also GELSTON V. HOYT, 16 U. S. 246 :: Volume 16 :: 1818 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

There are more examples of how your version of what the 4th means and what the founder's version was are totally different.


And that is the primary point: A few folks on here think that "unreasonable" is a bright line and everyone knows where it is and there shouldn't be any common law clarifying it. That's completely unworkable. When the question is asked "what is unreasonable" these same people use their own judgment and common sense as to what is reasonable/unreasonable, while claiming at the same time we can't have judges doing the same. It's just substituting a guy/gal with a black robe for one with a keyboard and an interweb connection.

You may not like it, but someone, somewhere, has to decide what "unreasonable" is. In our system, Art. III courts have that role.

Wow, for all your preaching about how stupid I am, you're sure missing the entire point of my argument: the rights of the citizen are inviolable, therefore the ONLY way to protect them with regard to the issues in the 4th is to obtain the warrant or the consent. I'm not denying the issues that arise with an unquantifiable term like "unreasonable." Nor am I arguing that the courts haven't attempted to define it for practical purposes. What I'm saying is that precisely because it is unquantifiable, simplify the standard such that the state must prove the value of the search (i.e. get a warrant) or simply get the consent.

Yes, I'm arguing a perfect-world, the-way-it-should-be scenario. Isn't that the point?

I understand that the courts have historically made efforts to define and quantify the "reasonable" search. But it is precisely because such an effort is both impossible and capable of being changed by subsequent courts that I argue it is inadequate as a standard.

Courts get it wrong. And rare is the time they get it wrong for the benefit of the citizen.


I'm not arguing what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable. I'm arguing that it is impossible to maintain an unchanging standard of what that is and as such, we should operate on a standard that can't be changed: warrant or consent or GTFO.