Illegally obtained evidence can now be used in court

[martybegan]

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

Because that would be a flagrant violation of the rules cops use to see if they can stop and question someone.

 

[martybegan]

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

You and I disagree on a mere technicallity. I agree that a cop shouldn't randomly stop people, hoping that when he runs the persons ID through the database that he will find an outstanding warrent. As soon as he does this to a person without an outstanding warrent, the cop is in trouble. And since most people don't have outstanding arrest warrent such random stops would be a bad practice. My main and perhaps only point is that a person for which there is a arrest warrant should not be able to use the fact that a search was random to have evidence thrown out. The warrent gives the cop the right to detain and arrest. If a cop makes a random stop and finds someone with an outstanding warrent for arrest, then the cop got very lucky.....he stopped someone for which he has authorization (the warrent) to arrest. That person's rights were not violated because that person has an outstanding warrent to be arrested and is suppose to be brought to justice.

The problem is that said luck is a result of an illegal search, and a flagrant one at that.

 

[bendog]

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

Because that would be a flagrant violation of the rules cops use to see if they can stop and question someone.

That's just the criticism of the decision. Cops are no longer bound by the rules of stopping someone if they can find something like an outstanding warrant later on.

 

[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.

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.

. Well Mary, here is the problem though.. Let's say you have planted evidence by a crooked cop, police chief, or whom ever the crook might be that planted that evidence, and the planted evidence is so good that by the time it is figured out later on to be fraudulent, a man has served 5 years. Now let's say there are laws governing the submissions of evidence, otherwise how it was obtained, time lines, quality, improper removal of the many parts of the evidence, replacement with other parts of evidence, improper crime scene procedures excetra, excetra. If any evidence is found to be obtained illegally or carelessly, it should only be considered by a judge in extreme circumstances, where as it is weighed by the judge upon how it was obtained, and this verses whether or not that the way it was obtained might not be enough reason to discard it if it is seen that it could be crucial to a heinous crime that was committed. The judge in a far less stressful case, might just throw out evidence that was obtained illegally. All depends on the judge residing over a case I'm guessing.

 

[beagle9]

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?

. Usually an outstanding warrant is lucked upon when stopping a person, and not the reason for the stop. Warrants are issued to people, and then usually the person or person's are hard to find when they don't show in court, but sometimes the cops get lucky in a pull over, but usually the stop was not pertaining to an outstanding warrant.

 

[beagle9]

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

. It wouldn't have been known in a random stop that the person had an outstanding, so the stop could be considered harassment if there was no reason to stop the person, but once the warrant is found, then everything changes.

 

[beagle9]

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

Because that would be a flagrant violation of the rules cops use to see if they can stop and question someone.

That's just the criticism of the decision. Cops are no longer bound by the rules of stopping someone if they can find something like an outstanding warrant later on.

. Ridiculous.

 

[JoeMoma]

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

. It wouldn't have been known in a random stop that the person had an outstanding, so the stop could be considered harassment if there was no reason to stop the person, but once the warrant is found, then everything changes.

Bingo!
That being said, since most people don't have outstanding warrents for their arrest, it would be incredibly stupid to "harrass/stop" people at random.

 

[martybegan]

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

Because that would be a flagrant violation of the rules cops use to see if they can stop and question someone.

That's just the criticism of the decision. Cops are no longer bound by the rules of stopping someone if they can find something like an outstanding warrant later on.

Actually the cop found out about the warrant before the search happened.

 

[beagle9]

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

Because that would be a flagrant violation of the rules cops use to see if they can stop and question someone.

That's just the criticism of the decision. Cops are no longer bound by the rules of stopping someone if they can find something like an outstanding warrant later on.

Actually the cop found out about the warrant before the search happened.

. Ok, but why again did the cop stop the citizen (was it due the outstanding warrant that prompted the stop) ? Didn't you all say that it was over a tip off that led to the suspicion in which prompted the stop or something like that ? Or was it just random ? I'm getting lost I guess.

 

[martybegan]

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

Because that would be a flagrant violation of the rules cops use to see if they can stop and question someone.

That's just the criticism of the decision. Cops are no longer bound by the rules of stopping someone if they can find something like an outstanding warrant later on.

Actually the cop found out about the warrant before the search happened.

. Ok, but why again did the cop stop the citizen (was it due the outstanding warrant that prompted the stop) ? Didn't you all say that it was over a tip off that led to the suspicion in which prompted the stop or something like that ? Or was it just random ? I'm getting lost I guess.

In the actual case in question, he was seen leaving a location that was being observed for possible drug sales.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in dissent that the decision is a blow to constitutional rights.

"The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights," Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.'

Sotomayor is correct.