SCOTUS: Illegal evidence is OK to uphold a conviction

[rambone]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that evidence obtained from an illegal search can be admissible evidence in court, and can be used to convict a man. "Good faith" of the officers overrules the 4th Amendment. This is a sad day... but nobody will notice.


High court upholds Ala. man's conviction based on illegal evidence

The question for the justices in this case was whether to invoke the exclusionary rule that generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. In this case, the court said, the good-faith efforts of the officers overrode that concern.

​

 

[sadclownwp]

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

 

[mrjarrell]

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

Right.....tell that to many of the innocent people on death row or serving life sentences who've been exonerated in the last few years. Nice try.

 

[ryknoll3]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that evidence obtained from an illegal search can be admissible evidence in court, and can be used to convict a man. "Good faith" of the officers overrules the 4th Amendment. This is a sad day... but nobody will notice.


High court upholds Ala. man's conviction based on illegal evidence

​

You took that quote out of context a little.

The story goes on to say that the evidence was gathered illegally because they searched his car after placing him in custody and found a handgun. SCOTUS found in Arizona v Gant that they need a warrant to search someone's car for "officer's safety" if the person is locked up in the cruiser and poses no threat. They handed down this decision after the guy was already convicted and was in the process of appealing.

They basically stated in this decision that you can't have a conviction thrown out based on a decision that came down after you were convicted for what you did.

That would be like saying that all persons in prison because of statements they gave to the police before Miranda came down should be released because they were not read their rights.

I am very worried about the state of the 4A in this county and the direction it's going, but I don't see how in this case it's an assault on our rights.

 

[jsharmon7]

You took that quote out of context a little.

The story goes on to say that the evidence was gathered illegally because they searched his car after placing him in custody and found a handgun. SCOTUS found in Arizona v Gant that they need a warrant to search someone's car for "officer's safety" if the person is locked up in the cruiser and poses no threat. They handed down this decision after the guy was already convicted and was in the process of appealing.

They basically stated in this decision that you can't have a conviction thrown out based on a decision that came down after you were convicted for what you did.

That would be like saying that all persons in prison because of statements they gave to the police before Miranda came down should be released because they were not read their rights.

I am very worried about the state of the 4A in this county and the direction it's going, but I don't see how in this case it's an assault on our rights.

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

 

[Kutnupe14]

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

Ding! C'mon Rambone, you're reaching with this one. Laws changed after the fact.... kinda like ex post facto.

 

[hornadylnl]

“ 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. ”
Because the above is as clear as mud, we must just do whatever we feel like and then claim ignorance until some oligarchs in robes determine just what our founders meant.

 

[Kutnupe14]

“ 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. ”
Because the above is as clear as mud, we must just do whatever we feel like and then claim ignorance until some oligarchs in robes determine just what our founders meant.

Actually, I can see it both sides of the debate as having merit.

 

[hornadylnl]

Actually, I can see it both sides of the debate as having merit.

I can to. I just choose to err on the side of liberty.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can to. I just choose to err on the side of liberty.

The question, is to what degree should this extend. If a person is convicted of a crime under the then current law, and the crime is subsequently taken of the books. Should that person go free or have the charges dropped?

 

[hornadylnl]

The question, is to what degree should this extend. If a person is convicted of a crime under the then current law, and the crime is subsequently taken of the books. Should that person go free or have the charges dropped?

My point is that the 4th amendment is pretty clear. Why is it that certain LEO's can't seem to grasp the concept of it and continually push the envelope to see just what they can or can't get away with? When they get smacked down, they just claim ignorance. Why don't officers err on the side of saying "hold up, this may not be right, let's get a warrant first and get the proper clarification for the next time this situation arises"?

 

[Bunnykid68]

The question, is to what degree should this extend. If a person is convicted of a crime under the then current law, and the crime is subsequently taken of the books. Should that person go free or have the charges dropped?

Both

 

[Kutnupe14]

Both

Should the person have legal recourse and sue?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Should the person have legal recourse and sue?

Maybe, we all know there are some stupid laws on the books that shouldnt be there. It must take some sort of effort to take a law off the books and if someone was incarcerated because of a silly law that was fixed later they absolutely should get some sort of compensation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe, we all know there are some stupid laws on the books that shouldnt be there. It must take some sort of effort to take a law off the books and if someone was incarcerated because of a silly law that was fixed later they absolutely should get some sort of compensation.

Actually, if legal recourse is taken off the table, I think I may have to switch my opinion.

 

[Rookie]

No. They WERE guilty until the law was removed. I say release and expunged record.

 

[22lr]

Good faith, its an exception that is as old as dirt. Some people really need to take an elementary level law class.

 

[hornadylnl]

Good faith, its an exception that is as old as dirt. Some people really need to take an elementary level law class.

Quantify good faith for me please. If an officer were accused of wrong doing, do you think he'll ever say that he acted out of anything other than good faith?

 

[22lr]

Quantify good faith for me please. If an officer were accused of wrong doing, do you think he'll ever say that he acted out of anything other than good faith?

Its the same exception that covers evidence seized from busting down the wrong door in a raid, only to find the warrant was misspelled and was for the house next door. If that happens, since the officers were acting in good faith, the evidence will be allowed in court. It has also happened where officers called a prosecutor before conducting a search and given the ok, only to find out the prosecutor was blowing smoke (the prosecutor was held liable in that instance). Good faith applies here since the officers were technically still allowed to do the search at the time it was conducted.

Quote right in the middle of the article "Alito said that in a case where police followed the law as it existed when they conducted the search"



Good-faith exception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Follow links on the wiki page to read the rulings that deal with it. Its long been held that good faith exceptions are allowed. My comment was not directed at anyone but the OP who really needs to start reading the applicable law before posting this kind of tread. Just reading the article once would have saved this fail boat from sinking.

 

[hornadylnl]

Oh, I understand how the good faith exception works.

For us mere peasants, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Here's your punishment.

For the king's men, taking it upon YOURSELF to determine what THE LAW is okie dokie so long as they act in good faith. If it is later determined that the king's men acted improperly, they are still free to meet up with their buddies at the lodge at night.

Good faith implies integrity. When so many have discredited that term, it shouldn't carry as much weight as it does.