I doubt it. If you had a question that could be answered by listing the fields in a TCP packet, then a simple wiki search could answer it for you. You wouldn’t need the expertise of computer experts here on this message board to tell you “Look at the wiki article for TCP”
Further, a straight listing of the fields of a TCP packet does not actually answer the question of “How does a computer know in what sequence to reassemble TCP packets?”. It requires some more information that isn’t contained in a simple listing of the fields.
Similar to, I suspect, why a straight listing of “the attenuation factors in Brown v Illinois” wouldn’t help a layman understand the legalities of those factors without an actual lawyer to explain them. Hopefully, one on this message board that DOES understand it enough to explain how those factors are utilized would answer the question beyond “Why don’t you list them out and see what it gets you?”
I understood you the first time. My cites are specific to the hypothetical we’re discussing and show why the body is not fruit of the poison tree and why the plain view doctrine does not apply.
How about we look at the hypothetical as it is and look at what the plain view doctrine says regarding “trespass or otherwise illegally infringe on your right to privacy” and if the officer waits to get a warrant to investigate the body? You didn’t address that and want to instead create additional hypotheticals.
Agreed. However, I believe that is why the legal aspect is important. It is one thing if I am standing on the street corner and ask you if you would like a free ice cream cone for the kids. You can tell me to piss off and keep walking.
It is not optional to stop when the police turn on their lights. They have used the coercive power of government (in a free society nonetheless) to force you to listen to the “joke” they are playing on you.
I tell people this and they poo-poo and say that they are giving things out so people should not be unhappy about it. Well, again, maybe I had a cold beer in the console. It’s not right, but I shouldn’t have been stopped without suspicion. Further, maybe I make a good income and whatever I am doing or wherever I am going at that moment is worth more than a $10 Starbucks gift certificate. What if I hate Starbucks?
What if I just found out that my wife was cheating on me and wanted to go for a drive to clear my head? Now, I’m being pulled over and think I’m getting a ticket for something, adding to my stress, but haha, it is all in good fun, here’s a $20 Target gift card. Thanks, pal, I’ll use that to buy a pillow to sleep on my buddy’s couch.
I don’t think I would get upset about being pulled over for this, but I damned well understand why some people would. And those people have a right to go about their day without a forced encounter with a government official.
Okay. Fair enough. He infringed on my right to privacy because I was legally driving down the road, breaking no laws that he observed or had a reasonable articulable suspicion that I was breaking. I had an absolute right to continue driving down the road unimpeded.
However, he illegally used the power that he was clothed in by the government to force me to stop along side the road so he could walk up to my window and then, and only then, observe evidence of a crime. He did not have a legal right to force me to be where I was to allow him such an observation.
Of course it does. I am amazed by this statement. Please explain.
Except of course as even SCOTUS admitted, there are literally thousands of little things you can be cited or pulled over for. So the cop would have to be SUPER stupid to admit he pulled the car over for a illegal reason. He could simply say they were speeding or weaving or failed to signal a turn, etc.
That’s correct. And I posted several cites why in this case it doesn’t matter.
Well, the burden of proof is actually on you. You have to show what rights of privacy entail to claim it’s been violated. But I’ll post what I’ve found:
If you watch the video linked above, the officer does not do that. He states that he pulled the driver over because he was obeying all traffic laws and wanted to thank him for being a good driver.
The entire Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and indeed our freedom would be in jeopardy if police officers would simply lie with impunity. In my experience, there are very, very few officers that do this. The ones I work with (against) are honest almost to a fault. If they screwed up, they will tell me that and then tell the prosecutor to dismiss the case.
I have won more cases in this informal stage than I have by a formal suppression hearing.
Respectfully, you have not. The cases you cited describe the attenuation doctrine that Bricker more fully discussed. In the hypo, there is nothing about the discovery of the body that is close to being attenuated. It is a direct and clear result of the illegal stop.
You cite correctly said that the Fourth Amendment protects against illegal searches, but failed to mention that it protects against illegal seizures. If I am pulled over, me and my car are seized by the government. I am not free to leave. I am not free to get out of the car and stretch my legs. Privacy, at its core, is the right to be left alone. The government is not honoring that by illegally stopping me.
I have. I cited for you not only the Attenuation Doctrine, but also the Independent Source Doctrine:
*Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. *
You clamed:
And I countered with a cite:
*A simple example helps to explain both the practical operation, and the controversial nature, of the exclusionary rule. Suppose the police stop a driver for speeding, and in the course of issuing the citation they discover cocaine in the glove compartment of the car. If the defendant did not consent to the search, and if the police did not have probable cause to believe illegal drugs could be found in the glove compartment, the search would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment.
…
Note also that the rule does not automatically result in acquittal. Suppose the police found cocaine in both the glove compartment and the trunk, and the court ruled that the cocaine in the trunk was seized illegally but that the search of the glove compartment was legal. The suppression of the cocaine from the trunk would not protect the defendant from being convicted for possessing the cocaine in the glove compartment.*
You said:
And I cited the three conditions that must be satisfied for the plain view doctrine to be used to convict one of a crime:
*The contraband must be in plain view. The term ‘plain view’ means out in the open, or otherwise easily observable. Therefore, only objects visible from the officer’s point of view may be seized under the plain view doctrine. For example, if an officer observes contraband sitting on the stoop of a porch, objects concealed in a kitchen cabinet are (likely) not in the officer’s ‘plain view’.
The officer must have a legal right to be where he is when he sees the contraband. This means that the officer can’t trespass or otherwise illegally infringe on your right to privacy in order to spot the contraband, or get a better vantage point in order to discover contraband.
The ‘incriminating’ character of the contraband must be ‘readily apparent’ to the officer. Only objects that are clearly indicative of criminal activity fall under the plain view doctrine. The officer may rely on his experience in determining whether the object is contraband. For example, an empty two-liter soda bottle with residue at the bottom may seem innocent to the untrained eye, but an experienced narcotics officer may recognize the bottle as evidence of methamphetamine production.*
I then reminded you that even though the stop was unlawful, the officer wasn’t trespassing or otherwise illegally infringing on a right to privacy and that the plain view doctrine may be irrelevant if after witnessing the body the officer gets a warrant.
You claimed a right to privacy would be violated; I posted a cite of what rights to privacy entail.
You literally have not responded to any of those points.
If the police car had pulled alongside the other car at a stoplight, for example, and observed the dead body, then they would have a valid reason to stop the car.
Or if another motorist had done so, and called in to 911. That, too, gives them a valid reason to stop the car.
But without a valid reason to stop the car in the first place, they can’t legally observe the dead body.
What independent source? The only source is the invalid stop!
Note that the independent source must be untainted by the original illegal stop. The two cases in that Wikipedia article are right on point.
Further, you misunderstand the plain view doctrine. An officer may not take an illegal action to bring an item into his plain view as your cites clearly indicate.
I know you didn’t like my hypos, but your position would allow officers to commit illegal acts (artificially limited by you to no trespass or destruction of property) to bring items into plain view. They could illegally stop a vehicle and then illegally demand that the driver place all items inside the vehicle on the curb.
Then you would argue that now that the officer was legally in public and that the items were in plain view, they would be admissible. It simply does not work that way.
Of course officers can’t take illegal actions. If that’s what you think I claimed, it’s you who is misunderstanding.
Demanding “it simply doesn’t work that way” isn’t compelling me to accept your statements. My cites are so far convincing me that my position is correct. You haven’t addressed all of them.
OK, so Jesse Pinkman, as coached by Walter White, tells Officer Schrader from inside his crack-manufacturing van:
Pinkman: Go get a warrant. Shrader (peels back tattered duct tape barely covering bullet holes): Yeah, fat chance. I got probable cause right here, and I’m coming in. Pinkman: You didn’t see those holes when you got here. Illegal. Go get a warrant.
We agree that the stop is illegal, yes? The officer is committing an illegal act in order to bring the items in the car into plain view. What am I missing?
What in particular have I not addressed? Are you seriously suggesting that when an officer demands that the driver place the contents of his glove box on the sidewalk that the search will be upheld and the evidence admissible?
Yet in the very case that gave rise to this discussion, Utah v. Strieff, the officer admitted that he did not know what time Strieff entered the drug house, did not know how long Strieff had been in the drug house, and therefore could not conclude that Strieff was only a short-time visitor, so he did not in fact have reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Strieff. He did not, as you theorize, falsely claim Strieff was speeding or failed to signal a turn.