No RS or PC is needed. It is not a 4th amendment search for a dog to sniff the exterior of a vehicle. That’s been ruled on several times.
This is basically the reality for most people. A police officer can technically violate the law and it’s up to you to fight it in court, which is the only legal means of redress a citizen has. Most people don’t have the time and money to fight, and they won’t unless their reputation has been irreparably damaged or they’ve sustained emotional and physical trauma that motivates them to sue. The courts are typically biased in favor of law enforcement in most cases. I’m not at all anti-officer – I’ve got some good friends who are or have been officers, and a high school classmate of mine died while on duty. Just pointing out that for most of us, for most situations, the smart play is to cooperate with officers, even if you technically don’t have to.
And yesterday, Uncle Clarence wrote one for the stop and frisk fans.
In her dissent Justice Sotomayor wrote:
I love Thomas’ opinion :
“Sure I mean what he did was illegal, but it’s not like he broke the law or anythin’ !”
Never worry. Thomas believes official misuse to be “unlikely.”
This white, middle class suburbanite wonders what the fuck world that fool is living in?
Odd that Thomas was able to impose a precedential opinion by himself. You’d think that with the other justices unanimously arrayed against his view, he would be writing the lone dissent.
This opinion breaks no new ground. 1974’s Brown v. Illinois lays out the factors that steered this case. The guy was pulled over and detained without reasonable suspicion. During the detention, a warrant for his arrest was discovered. He was arrested pursuant to the warrant, and a search incident to that arrest discovered contraband.
So the question to ask is: does the exclusionary rule in such circumstances apply?
The long-standing practice has been to examine several factors to weigh how closely the initial illegal stop was tied to the evidence used against the accused. Here, there was very little connection: it was the pre-existing warrant that led to the arrest.
The stop was illegal, but not flagrantly so.
“Flagrant,” means notorious, scandalous, or outrageous. Following a tip to the police that drugs were being sold from a particular Salt Lake City residence, police began surveillance and observed many arrivals whose visits were extremely short, matching the expected behavior for a drug sales operation. After a week’s surveillance, Edward Strieff was the visitor that police decided to stop and question. The officer stopped Strieff in a parking lot of a nearby convenience store immediately following his exit from the house, detained him, and asked him for ID and what he had been doing at the residence. The ID check revealed an existing warrant. Strieff was arrested pursuant to that warrant, and a search of his person following that arrest led to the discovery of a baggie of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Can you explain why you believe the police conduct here was “flagrantly” illegal?
What is the purpose of the sarcasm here? Did Thomas not say that? Is it not OK for Dinsdale to think that’s a stupid point because he wrote for the majority?
Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which means two things: yes, he said it… and it was an opinion endorsed by the rest of the justices who joined the majority, including Breyer, lest this degenerate into a evil-conservatives-vs-virtuous-liberals discussion.
Dinsdale’s comment imputes the sentiment solely to Thomas, hinting that only Thomas could be so incognizant of the real world, in which depraved law enforcement prowls the streets waiting for hapless victims.
More broadly, the sarcasm is spawned by Dinsdale’s apparent unfamiliarity with Brown v. Illinois, which I find annoying.
The point is that while Bricker has a great deal of legal knowledge, he also has a predictable manner of posting.
Cut the shit.
That’s not remotely an answer. Your post seemed clear in its disdain for the opinion’s rejection of “flagrant” as an adjective to describe the police violation of law. I’m asking you what aspects of the police behavior here you find to be flagrantly illegal.
Question related to warrants - how many people in the US have outstanding warrants?
That’s not even remotely an attempt at debate and discussion. It’s rude, as well.
No warning this time. More such in any thread in Great Debates or Elections will get you some, though.
Wasn’t meant as such. It was meant as a jibe, a jest, a tomfoolery.
Well the original post was. **Bricker **opted to take it dead serious, and do the **Bricker **thing. My *second *post was meant to let him save his 100 bucks an hour breath.
Is it too much to ask that the police remain meticulously legal?
I’m confused. If the police had such evidence that the place was a drug den, and that Strieff was likely a drug purchaser, what made the stop illegal? Sounds like they had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. (Also sounds like getting a warrant would not have been terribly difficult).
What should they have done to make the stop legal and why didn’t they do that instead?
I was only moderating the second post. Again, be civil. If you have to take issue with another poster’s style of writing and so forth, the Pit is a few short clicks away. I’m confident you can find your way.
Meanwhile, leave posts like your second one alone.
If the police had evidence that the place was a drug den, why not get a warrant and walk in to the house? Also, if the warrant would not have been terribly difficult…get the damn thing. If the police aren’t lazy, this probably doesn’t even end up in a courtroom beyond arraignment, and we all save time and money in the long run.