Evidence obtained by a citizen, even illegally, is generally admissible in criminal court. I could break into your house and take pictures of you doing something illegal, turn it over to the police, and they could use that picture at your trial.
UNLESS I’m working on behalf of the state or as a state actor. Burden is on the defense to prove that I’m a state actor, which is easy to do for police officers if someone made the ludicrous argument that fruits of an illegal police search is admissible evidence from a concerned private citizen.
Yes, but it’s still illegal for you to break into my house. And a cop can’t claim to be acting as a civilian to illegally search my house and then claim to be acting as an officer of the law to arrest me based on that illegal search. And if they did, they should be arrested for breaking into my house, and the evidence should be thrown out.
And you are wrong. Just because everything worked out in the end doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bad decision or improper law or that the Judge wasn’t lazy. No one is really sure of why that judge made the decision he did, hence why that thread is all over the place, but the judge somewhere fucked up and on Friday determined “at-will” doesn’t mean employees can change jobs. UV says, “Hey no big deal, they got a day of paid vacation.” while everyone else is outraged at how easily the employees had their rights taken away because of corporate greed.
You may get it, depending on what crime you are “investigating”.
If you catch an underage sex trafficking ring, you are probably going to get immunity for breaking in. If you catch them possessing and consuming personal quantities of illegal drugs, then it’s likely that you will be the one facing the criminal justice system.
That’s one of the real eyebrow raisers of a lot of UV’s posts. I mean, I kind of get why he might take an extreme pro-defendant position on bail/bond (even if the legal argument put forward seems dubious), but then to do a 180 and be insistent that there MUST be a way to creatively have willing state law enforcement officer use federal law as a pretext for searches and arrests… WTF?
I think he lets (not very well thought out) politics tint his reading/comprehension of the law sometimes. Pretty boilerplate Republican, really. Pro-white-guy freedom, anti-drugs, anti-worker, etc. If he keeps it up, he might just land a spot on the Supreme Court the next time a republican is in office…
“It was only the Southerners who thought Blacks should only count for 3/5th of a person. The Northerners thought they should count as a person at all,” was not quite the rhetorical blow he thought it was.
Yes, the Southerners thought Blacks should count for 3/5th of a person . . . for apportionment purposes, but fuck if they were actually gonna let them vote.
By including three-fifths of slaves (who had no voting rights) in the legislative apportionment, the Three-fifths Compromise provided additional representation in the House of Representatives of slave states compared to the free states. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 seats, but would have had 33 had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 seats out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 seats out of 240, instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had additional influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court until the American Civil War.
The at-will employees thread reminds me a little of old Bricker, whose richly-deserved reputation would follow him into threads where he wasn’t actually doing anything wrong, where people would assume the mere fact that he was going against the grain of the recreational outrage meant he must have had some kind of ulterior motive in posting.
Now he seems to be heading for some epic flameout in the FQ thread “Police Interrogations” where he seems to believe that a police officer, on duty, armed and in uniform can do things they are prohibited from doing by their employer the State, by simply shifting to “civilian mode” temporarily.
We had a State Police sergeant who was visiting homes “advising people as a neighbor” to take down their Black Lives Matter signs who had to be instructed by the State Attorney General that this was improper. Thank goodness UV is not a lawyer.
He has single handedly turned that thread into a raging dumpster fire. He repeatedly asserts that anyone can make a citizen’s arrest based on the smell of pot, and also that a citizen’s arrest gives one the right to search the arrestee’s vehicle because of “800 years of caselaw” none of which he can cite. I think @Loach may pop a blood vessel trying to explain all of this to an alleged lawyer.
I just got around to reading that thread, and I am shocked the mods are letting his baseless assertions and hijacks go unchecked in a Factual Questions thread.
My favorite, by far, was his idea that a law enforcement officer can suddenly just announce that he’s now magically just a citizen and conduct searches or break police protocal/caselaw to do as he pleases. Police could have avoided thousands of motion to suppress with the UV theory of police behavior.
