Illegally obtained evidence can now be used in court

[MikeK]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

Isn't that something? Little by little.

What this clearly means is it's okay to break the law to enforce the law.

 

[MikeK]

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

It begins at that level, then it gradually escalates.

 

[beagle9]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

Isn't that something? Little by little.

What this clearly means is it's okay to break the law to enforce the law.

. And here we are trying to clean up corruption in the forces, but then you have something like this that could breed corruption in the forces.

 

[martybegan]

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

It begins at that level, then it gradually escalates.

The decision was narrowly construed to make sure that wouldn't happen.

 

[MaryL]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

Sometimes the truth, facts and evidence transcends laws past or present. And the law should be all about gathering facts and evidence, and if those people that garnered the those facts did so questionably or illegal, punish them for violating the laws. Keep the facts. The antidote to poison fruit. The facts should NEVER be excluded. Seems simple to me. Truth.

 

[Agit8r]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

 

[Correll]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

BIG JUMP from asking a man leaving a drug den for ID to planting drugs.

 

[beagle9]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

BIG JUMP from asking a man leaving a drug den for ID to planting drugs.

. All depends, where as if a corrupt cop has motive to do evil or to get at someone, then anything can develope from a simple innocent stop.

 

[MaryL]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

I understand that, except you can't falsify reality, leave those facts up to the justice system to prove they were planted, and if there is any suspicion evidence was tampered with or false, so be it. IT should not be automatically excluded. That is absurd. All facts should matter, you agree?

 

[beagle9]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

I understand that, except you can't falsify reality, leave those facts up to the justice system to prove they were planted, and if there is any suspicion evidence was tampered with or false, so be it. IT should not be automatically excluded. That is absurd. All facts should matter, you agree?

. Agree, but there has to be an Incentive to be proactive instead of reactive after the fact. Best to send the message that the law will not, does not or should not ever tamper with or plant evidence in a case.

 

[MaryL]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

I understand that, except you can't falsify reality, leave those facts up to the justice system to prove they were planted, and if there is any suspicion evidence was tampered with or false, so be it. IT should not be automatically excluded. That is absurd. All facts should matter, you agree?

. Agree, but there has to be an Incentive to be proactive instead of reactive after the fact. Best to send the message that the law will not, does not or should not ever tamper with or plant evidence in a case.

The justice system should have access to a ALL known evidence. All the evidence and the facts should be admissible, and if the information provided is proven fraudulent or mistaken, then have it excluded . I can't say again that we shouldn't automatically exclude any evidence regardless of how it was gathered, that is absurd.

 

[Agit8r]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

I understand that, except you can't falsify reality, leave those facts up to the justice system to prove they were planted, and if there is any suspicion evidence was tampered with or false, so be it. IT should not be automatically excluded. That is absurd. All facts should matter, you agree?

. Agree, but there has to be an Incentive to be proactive instead of reactive after the fact. Best to send the message that the law will not, does not or should not ever tamper with or plant evidence in a case.

The justice system should have access to a ALL known evidence. All the evidence and the facts should be admissible, and if the information provided is proven fraudulent or mistaken, then have it excluded . I can't say again that we shouldn't automatically exclude any evidence regardless of how it was gathered, that is absurd.

No one in a truly free society ever has to prove their own innocence. The burden of proof must be on the accuser. And if the accuser cannot be trusted in small matters, then he cannot be trusted in any matter. If people wish things to be other than that, they should move to Red China, so they can live under a justice system that fits their pitiful subservience

 

[MaryL]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

I understand that, except you can't falsify reality, leave those facts up to the justice system to prove they were planted, and if there is any suspicion evidence was tampered with or false, so be it. IT should not be automatically excluded. That is absurd. All facts should matter, you agree?

. Agree, but there has to be an Incentive to be proactive instead of reactive after the fact. Best to send the message that the law will not, does not or should not ever tamper with or plant evidence in a case.

The justice system should have access to a ALL known evidence. All the evidence and the facts should be admissible, and if the information provided is proven fraudulent or mistaken, then have it excluded . I can't say again that we shouldn't automatically exclude any evidence regardless of how it was gathered, that is absurd.

No one in a truly free society ever has to prove their own innocence. The burden of proof must be on the accuser. And if the accuser cannot be trusted in small matters, then he cannot be trusted in any matter. If people wish things to be other than that, they should move to Red China, so they can live under a justice system that fits their pitiful subservience

You have to be really naive to think that excluding evidence because how it was gathered in any way impinges on innocence. Facts are strange animals, and none of them should be excluded. To do so is a travesty of justice. All the evidence and their validity needs to be weighed to find the truth. ALL facts should be examined, and how they were gathered and where they came from is important. But all the evidence gathered, the facts, they are the priority.

 

[Agit8r]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

I understand that, except you can't falsify reality, leave those facts up to the justice system to prove they were planted, and if there is any suspicion evidence was tampered with or false, so be it. IT should not be automatically excluded. That is absurd. All facts should matter, you agree?

. Agree, but there has to be an Incentive to be proactive instead of reactive after the fact. Best to send the message that the law will not, does not or should not ever tamper with or plant evidence in a case.

The justice system should have access to a ALL known evidence. All the evidence and the facts should be admissible, and if the information provided is proven fraudulent or mistaken, then have it excluded . I can't say again that we shouldn't automatically exclude any evidence regardless of how it was gathered, that is absurd.

No one in a truly free society ever has to prove their own innocence. The burden of proof must be on the accuser. And if the accuser cannot be trusted in small matters, then he cannot be trusted in any matter. If people wish things to be other than that, they should move to Red China, so they can live under a justice system that fits their pitiful subservience

You have to be really naive to think that excluding evidence because how it was gathered in any way impinges on innocence. Facts are strange animals, and none of them should be excluded. To do so is a travesty of justice. All the evidence and their validity needs to be weighed to find the truth. ALL facts should be examined, and how they were gathered and where they came from is important. But all the evidence gathered, the facts, they are the priority.

The fact is, that evidence gathered by crooked cops cannot be relied upon, because a crooked cop plants evidence. Again, not rocket science. Just common sense. There was a reason that the Fourth Amendment exists; to prevent conviction by corrupt means. A society without such protections isn't a free society.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

why not the congress is devising the best way to do away with due process

 

[dblack]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

That's the way it's been going. The 'left' hand takes away our civil liberties and, I'll be damned, so does the 'right'.

 

[dblack]

Thoughts?

Supreme Court rules for police in search case

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.

Isn't that something? Little by little.

What this clearly means is it's okay to break the law to enforce the law.

I really believe the popular conception of government is undergoing a significant transformation. People, even the Court, are accepting the idea of a government that 'runs' society. Rather than tasking government with protecting our rights, we're asking it to use its power to push society toward desired outcomes - in practice violating the rights of those who don't agree with those desired outcomes.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

 

[HenryBHough]

And you needed additional proof that this is post-Constitutional Obamerica?

No, really???

 

[JoeMoma]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

So what if the individual would have refused to stop or give his ID to the cop? He should have asked why he was being detained; and, if no valid reason was given, he should have stepped around the officer and been on his way!

You are right. But he didn't.