Illegally obtained evidence can now be used in court

[Confounding]

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.

 

[Anathema]

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.

 

[Confounding]

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.

 

[Anathema]

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

Good. That's what we NEED at the poont.

 

[there4eyeM]

Ooops!

 

[Confounding]

Good. That's what we NEED at the poont.

Yeah, great idea. Why not instate a monarch while we're at it?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

We have been one for some time. If they would turn as much of that energy against our enemies as they do Americans, the terrorist field would be greatly diminished.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[there4eyeM]

This reduction of liberties has a lot to do with 911 and repercussions.

 

[Anathema]

Yeah, great idea. Why not instate a monarch while we're at it?

I'm no more a fan of Monarchy than I am of Constitutional Republics or Democracies.

My preference would for a Limited Constitutional Republic based on Authoritarian Principals. Thusly the purpose of the Government wouldn't be to make new rules or debate the existing ones, only to enforce them.

 

[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.

. What like the police planting it ? You see that's why there were laws and rules guiding us for years, and now all of a sudden people are turning over their rights to due process ? Why ? Because of terrorism or is that just the excuse used now ?

 

[Correll]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

 

[martybegan]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

here is the original conditions from the decsion.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed. Held: The evidence Officer Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590. In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Pp. 4–10.

 

[Correll]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

here is the original conditions from the decsion.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed. Held: The evidence Officer Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590. In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Pp. 4–10.

The man was observed leaving a house reasonably suspected of being a drug dealing site, and the stop is considered illegal?


That sounds like complete bullshit to me.

 

[martybegan]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

here is the original conditions from the decsion.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed. Held: The evidence Officer Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590. In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Pp. 4–10.

The man was observed leaving a house reasonably suspected of being a drug dealing site, and the stop is considered illegal?


That sounds like complete bullshit to me.

I think it has something to do with the tip being unconfirmed that ID'ed the place as a potential drug den.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Yes, but to stop someone for no reason and ask for their ID would seem to violate the safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure clause in the 4th Amendment. The five male justices all concurred with the decision while the three female justices opposed the decision.
Sotomayer dissented and wrote a scathing rebuttal to the majority opinion:

WASHINGTON, June 21 (UPI) -- Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a fierce dissent Monday to a ruling in a Fourth Amendment case, arguing that the 5-3 majority opinion will allow police to stop citizens in ways that "corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Fourth Amendment ruling will 'corrode' civil liberties

Good for you Sonia. your dissent will be part of the record and will be referenced when this unconstitutional apostasy is overturned.

 

[JQPublic1]

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!

 

[Correll]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

here is the original conditions from the decsion.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed. Held: The evidence Officer Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590. In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Pp. 4–10.

The man was observed leaving a house reasonably suspected of being a drug dealing site, and the stop is considered illegal?


That sounds like complete bullshit to me.

I think it has something to do with the tip being unconfirmed that ID'ed the place as a potential drug den.

The tip was supported by the traffic flow of visits.

Perhaps not hard proof, but is hard proof really required or is reasonable suspicion?

 

[martybegan]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

here is the original conditions from the decsion.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed. Held: The evidence Officer Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590. In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Pp. 4–10.

The man was observed leaving a house reasonably suspected of being a drug dealing site, and the stop is considered illegal?


That sounds like complete bullshit to me.

I think it has something to do with the tip being unconfirmed that ID'ed the place as a potential drug den.

The tip was supported by the traffic flow of visits.

Perhaps not hard proof, but is hard proof really required or is reasonable suspicion?

I am not familiar with police procedures when it comes to this, but they considered it a non flagrant violation, which also probably plays into the fact that it was seen as not covered by the exclusionary rule.

 

[JQPublic1]

DOes anyone know why the stop was illegal?

here is the original conditions from the decsion.

Narcotics detective Douglas Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug activity. The number of people he observed making brief visits to the house over the course of a week made him suspicious that the occupants were dealing drugs. After observing respondent Edward Strieff leave the residence, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, identifying himself and asking Strieff what he was doing at the house. He then requested Strieff’s identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Officer Fackrell arrested Strieff, searched him, and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Strieff moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was derived from an unlawful investigatory stop. The trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, however, and ordered the evidence suppressed. Held: The evidence Officer Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible based on an application of the attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590. In this case, there was no flagrant police misconduct. Therefore, Officer Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. Pp. 4–10.

The man was observed leaving a house reasonably suspected of being a drug dealing site, and the stop is considered illegal?


That sounds like complete bullshit to me.

I think it has something to do with the tip being unconfirmed that ID'ed the place as a potential drug den.

The tip was supported by the traffic flow of visits.

Perhaps not hard proof, but is hard proof really required or is reasonable suspicion?

I am not familiar with police procedures when it comes to this, but they considered it a non flagrant violation, which also probably plays into the fact that it was seen as not covered by the exclusionary rule.

The "slippery slope" can also be applied here. What did the officer expect when he asked for the man's ID? I would think he had a high expectancy that the guy would have drugs on his person but know he could not search him. However, it isn't clear if the officer had run a check on the arrestee's vehicle after seeing him enter the target location. If so,he would have known beforehand who the man was and therefore was emboldened to ask for ID to get a "twofer one" arrest. This cop was no rookie, he knew what he was doing!