SCOTUS: Illegal evidence is OK to uphold a conviction

[88GT]

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

You can say a million more times, and it won't change the fact that you're wrong.

 

[Rob377]

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.

Maybe you didn't read the opinion and instead rely on Chicken Little's exaggerations.
The cops followed the law as it existed at the time. It was changed after they made the search. They did everything by the book. The whole purpose of the exclusionary rule is ensure cops do it by the book. What's the point of excluding evidence obtained legally at the time?

The Felon's own lawyers admitted that.

(b) Although the search in this case turned out to be unconstitu- tional under Gant, Davis concedes that the officers’ conduct was in strict compliance with then-binding Circuit law and was not culpable in any way. Under this Court’s exclusionary-rule precedents, the ac- knowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis’s claim. Pp. 9– 11.

The same thing would go for mere peasants. Ex post facto. If you did something that was completely legal today, and they made it illegal tomorrow, they cannot punish you for it. Same concept here.

Why apply the exclusionary rule as ex post facto doctrine?

 

[22lr]

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.

Its not ignorance of the law, its acting in good faith that the law/knowledge is correct. Very fine line between the 2, but there is a difference. The 2 cases in the wki article explain it very well.

 

[KG1]

"Good Faith" "Officer Safety" "Comply Now, Sue Later" "If You have nothing to hide..blah blah blah"

 

[22lr]

"Good Faith" "Officer Safety" "Comply Now, Sue Later" "If You have nothing to hide..blah blah blah"

Another person who didnt read the article, or the applicable law.

 

[hornadylnl]

Its not ignorance of the law, its acting in good faith that the law/knowledge is correct. Very fine line between the 2, but there is a difference. The 2 cases in the wki article explain it very well.

“ 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. ”



Again, what is so difficult to understand about the above? Are officers not capable of doing a smell test to the above? Would we rather have officers who err on the side of liberty than to simply say, I can do this because an oligarch in a robe determined what his personal opinion on the above is?

 

[hornadylnl]

So should anything happen to these officers or their administrators?

FBI Raids Wrong Home... - Page 2 - INGunOwners

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._need_no_warrant_expletive_boom_headshot.html

A box of ammo of your choice to anyone who reads through all the court transcripts to the above cases and reports back with the number of times "good faith" is used by the lawyers of the king's men.

 

[Rob377]

“ 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. ”



Again, what is so difficult to understand about the above? Are officers not capable of doing a smell test to the above? Would we rather have officers who err on the side of liberty than to simply say, I can do this because an oligarch in a robe determined what his personal opinion on the above is?

So, everyone should just follow your opinion of what "unreasonable" is, instead?

I'd say it's unreasonable to apply the exclusionary rule (which isn't even mentioned in the constitution at all, but rather an invention of an "oligarch in robe") when there would be no point to doing so. It wouldn't deter any wrongdoing, because there was no wrongdoing to deter here. They followed the law, and the power that be decided to change it after the fact. Applying "just because" is the very definition of "unreasonable."

 

[Rob377]

So should anything happen to these officers or their administrators?

FBI Raids Wrong Home... - Page 2 - INGunOwners

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._need_no_warrant_expletive_boom_headshot.html

A box of ammo of your choice to anyone who reads through all the court transcripts to the above cases and reports back with the number of times "good faith" is used by the lawyers of the king's men.

It's also used by the defendant's lawyers, who conceded the cops followed the existing law.

I'll take a box of 357 Sig please.

 

[rambone]

The road to Hell is paved with Good Faith.

 

[88GT]

The same thing would go for mere peasants. Ex post facto. If you did something that was completely legal today, and they made it illegal tomorrow, they cannot punish you for it. Same concept here.

Why apply the exclusionary rule as ex post facto doctrine?

Because the rights of people don't really change.

And to take your argument one step further, if it can't be used to convict later, why should they be able to use it to convict before the courts got it right?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but we can't stand for allowing the courts to determine what should be an immobile line. If you accept the premise that they can change what is good/bad from yesterday to today, then you accept the premise that they can change what's good or bad from today to tomorrow. They could just as easily reverse their decision in a future case.

We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable. Not slightly inalienable or court dependent inalienable. Non-negotiable. No taking into consideration good-faith this or imminent discovery-that.

NO search should every take place without a warrant or consent. That is the only information the courts need to consider.

 

[hornadylnl]

It's also used by the defendant's lawyers, who conceded the cops followed the existing law.

I'll take a box of 357 Sig please.

Again, the courts have said that ignorance of the law is no excuse. An officer can take an action that isn't legal but use the good faith exception. That not what happened in this case but it does happen.

I don't look to the courts to determine my morality or sense of justice. I ask myself if my intended action takes away the liberty of another. If so, it's unjust. If we determine justice and morality by the opininion of the courts then we can say slave owners had no blood on their hands because the courts said it was ok. We can say people that discriminated against others were just because Jim Crow laws said what they did was perfectly legal.

 

[Expat]

We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable.

In theory that is what the courts do, apply the law with the Constitution being the highest law of the land. Unfortunately they fail in that mandate way too often and have been doing so before our lifetimes began. Many of them have been quoted as saying they start with the decision that they want and then come up with a justification for it. Sometimes those positions are almost laughable if it wasn't so tragic. This is why Jefferson and many of our other Founders felt the Judiciary could (and already began to in their lifetimes) become despotic.

 

[hornadylnl]

Because the rights of people don't really change.

And to take your argument one step further, if it can't be used to convict later, why should they be able to use it to convict before the courts got it right?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but we can't stand for allowing the courts to determine what should be an immobile line. If you accept the premise that they can change what is good/bad from yesterday to today, then you accept the premise that they can change what's good or bad from today to tomorrow. They could just as easily reverse their decision in a future case.

We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable. Not slightly inalienable or court dependent inalienable. Non-negotiable. No taking into consideration good-faith this or imminent discovery-that.

NO search should every take place without a warrant or consent. That is the only information the courts need to consider.

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?

 

[Rob377]

Because the rights of people don't really change.

And to take your argument one step further, if it can't be used to convict later, why should they be able to use it to convict before the courts got it right?

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but we can't stand for allowing the courts to determine what should be an immobile line. If you accept the premise that they can change what is good/bad from yesterday to today, then you accept the premise that they can change what's good or bad from today to tomorrow. They could just as easily reverse their decision in a future case.

We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable. Not slightly inalienable or court dependent inalienable. Non-negotiable. No taking into consideration good-faith this or imminent discovery-that.

NO search should every take place without a warrant or consent. That is the only information the courts need to consider.

except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.

So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.

Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.

 

[E5RANGER375]

“ 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.

amen, its as clear as crystal. therefore I must say ... from my cold dead hands.

a lot of things need a revamp.

 

[hornadylnl]

except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.

So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.

Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.

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.

 

[88GT]

except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.

No, they really aren't mobile. Courts have created that mobility by disregarding the spirit AND letter of the law.

So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.

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.

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.

Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.

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?

 

[E5RANGER375]

Should the person have legal recourse and sue?

I think we need to start taking fingers and toes. people will fear losing a finger more than some money that doesnt even come out of their pocket anyways.

 

[E5RANGER375]

except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.

So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.

Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.

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.