Well, there’s caseload. And pay caps.
But yes.
I’d be extremely surprised, especially because it would too easy a scam to bust. All it would need was a call to the feds, a bugged trial, and comparison of the transcript to the tape.
Not saying it’s impossible. As late as, say, thirty years ago, maybe. But today? I’d be stunned.
This is quite absurd nonsense. :smack:
Not surprising, I suppose. :rolleyes:
A warrant is an order from a court. They don’t just lie around; they don’t just get signed and issued without there being a reason, etc.
Anyone who attempted to use such a document would be pretty likely to be found in contempt of whatever court is claimed to have issued the document. For an officer, that would be a real no no.
Perpetuating this sort of nonsense is quite the opposite of what this web site is all about. Shame.
No offense, but how so? He wasted your time for something with no basis; he probably isn’t fazed by your not having anything.
The time to get to know about the defendant’s case. If you have an overload of cases it could be quite difficult to do even the simple things properly.
In addition to things like this there is this. One judge, Scalia, on the court of last resort has ruled, in a dissent I think, that actual innocence of the crime for which a person is convicted is no bar to keepig the person imprisoned for the crime.
Wrongfully admitted evidence is one of those “technicalities” that conservatives scorn and if actual innocence doesn’t help the technicality could also be futile.
(Note: I’m only vaguely familiar with the opinion that you mention, and have no time to look it up at the moment.)
I agree that, as a sound bite, this idea appears to be an incomprehensible perversion of justice. If actual innocence doesn’t matter, then the Evil Republicans have won!
But think it through. There’s a trial. It’s procedurally fair. In other words, the defendant is represented by competent counsel, and he gets to present evidence of innocence. But he loses. There’s an appeal. The appellate court rules that the trial was fair, and the evidence was sufficient to support the fact-finder’s guilty verdict. Maybe various habeas corpus or other collateral attacks on the verdict follow, during which the defendant claims innocence. These fail, although he gets a fair hearing.
How long must this go on before a court is able to say “No more”, and throw out new petitions without a full-blown evidentiary hearing? How many trials is a defendant entitled to? Would you agree that there has to be some limit?
If defence counsel thought something was up, wouldn’t they just apply to listen to the tape of the proceedings and compare it to the transcript? 
Or don’t your courts tape the trials?
I’m going to have to go to Findlaw and look this up. I’m quite sure that it was more than that the person claimed innocence. It was “actual innocence.”
How many trials is a innocent person entitled to?
If there’s unassailable evidence, DNA, video of the crime etc. shouldn’t you get one more bite at the apple?
(bolding added by me for emphasis)
So, the defndant is required to provide evidence of innocence, in response to fabricated of illgegaly aquired evidence of guilt?
I have no evidence that I was innocent of aiding and abbeting Lee Harvey Oswald (aside from the the technically that I hadn’t been born yet.
Think it through. Who decides whether the innocence is actual (or that the evidence is unassailable), rather than just claimed? There’s no Magic Justice Fairy, pronouncing innocence.
No. There’d have to be another trial, or at least an evidentiary hearing. Is that supposed to happen every time a convicted prisoner claims that he’s really innocent, and he’s got some new witness or evidence?
If so, there’s going to be an awful lot of prisoners, with nothing to lose, who might as well take a shot at it. There’s a large number of pro se prisoner petitions (of various kinds) already that clog up the courts. If we recognize a right to file post-conviction Innocence Petitions, which allow a convicted person to present more testimony, or some additional piece of evidence that allegedly exonerates him, there’ll be thousands more. What convicted felon wouldn’t like another bite at the apple?
I’m all in favor of a procedure that allows a judge the discretion to re-examine a conviction. But if it’s mandatory - if a claim of actual innocence compels the courts to have another proceeding, then there’s a problem.
After conviction? Absolutely.
Again, think it through. There’s been a trial. The fact-finder determines that the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All appeals have been exhausted. You’re saying that, if the convicted person (person of convict?) then claims innocence, that the evidence against him was fabricated, the prosecution is now back to square one, and has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt again? So he has to round up all the same witnesses again, compel them to testify once more, put the victim or his family through the emotional agony of another trial, and tie up a courtroom for a week? If that’s the case, what did the first trial determine? Nothing, apparently.
.
See above. Ain’t no MJF.
I have more to say on this, but I think it’s already been said previously in another thread. Let me see if I can find it.
I am a bit ‘sceered’ to reply, since I don’t have a cite, and I am going to base the following on memory…so…
IIRC (disclaimer) the SC opinion that is being discussed was after the person was PROVEN innocent via DNA evidence, and then not set free… somehting that was not available at the original time of conviction.
So, yes… people should always be able to take one more bite… but each subsequent bite must be harder and harder to achieve… especially without compelling and correctly established innocence (not just claimed).
Bricker, thanks for your knowledge. Too bad you aren’t on the clock while answering all these questions.
I have always wondered on how technical the courts get on things like this. What if the officer says, “I’m going to search your car with your permission, Bricker.” and immediately opens your car door and starts searching. Or how about if he says, “Will you open that door for me so I can start searching.?” but in the tone of a declaration. Can the state argue that the defendant should have asserted NO if he wanted to keep his 4th amendment rights?
Is there a standard as to what can be judged a weapon when felt through clothes? I can imagine a scenario where an officer pats you down and feels something that’s rectangular and box shaped. That could be a buck knife, stun gun, leatherman, pocket Bible, or even a pack of cards. I ask because during my stop that I described earlier, I had two foam earplugs in a small paper case in my front pocket. When the officer felt that he ordered me to empty my pockets. Would that be considered an illegal search in your opinion?
The general rule is that the consent must be (paraphrase) clear and unequivocal and intelligently given. Submitting to the officer’s search is NOT consent - it’s merely submission. Waiver of consent (like you are suggesting) has to meet a very very high standard.
No. As long as the officer had reasonable fear that you presented a danger, he can pat you down. Then when he feels the small paper case, if he thinks it might be a weapon, he has probable cause to order you to turn out your pockets.
- Peter Wiggen
It certainly would be nice to have Bricker with you when you are stopped like that! (We have had our disagreements, but I respect his legal skills)! True story- I did have a friend who is an attorney with me when stopped. When the Policeman asked if I knew why he pulled me over (an invitation to confess) I said “on the advice of my Attorney, I am afraid I can’t answer that question”… with a grin. He said “Maybe that’s not the best advice”, and I turned to my friend and said “Counselor?” and the cop laughed and said “Anyone who keeps his Lawyer in his car in case he’s pulled over isn’t getting a ticket from me!” (with a smile). We all laughed, and he let us go.
I also drove a few dancers around, and got laid lots. 
I’ve been busy today, but this is a great thread. A few thoughts:
Bricker has stated the general rule:
In the case Ravenman posits – waiting for the canine unit to arrive – the rule remains the same. The driver may only be detained as long as it takes the officer to complete the citation process. But, if in the course of the citation process, the officer develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing, the officer may detain the suspect longer. Where the officer has reasonable suspicion of drug-related wrongdoing, the officer may detain the suspect for a reasonable amount of time to get a dog out to sniff the vehicle. What’s reasonable will depend on the circumstances.
The bigger problem, in my opinion, is not with those people who are found to have broken the law. As Bricker noted, people charged with crimes are provided with lawyers. The bigger problem is people whose rights are technically violated (a detention too long, a search without reasonable suspicion), but who are released because nothing is found. Who helps them protect their rights? The truth is that those people – who did nothing wrong-- really have no effective means to enforce their rights.
This is great. I thought about this for a while today. The trick here is to faithfully transcribe most of the case, but to leave out a few (not all) of the defendant’s objections to evidence. Because you are required to “preserve” an issue for appeal by making a record of your objection, if a court reporter left out some of the key objections, it would be impossible to appeal. I can’t see it happening though; the court reporters I’ve met take their oaths very seriously.
Nope. We’re wild and crazy that way. 
What a great place this is: a thread about how to deal with a cop who stops you becomes a discussion of factual innocence.
Maybe it’s just my state (MD) but IIRC on the occasions I’ve been in court and someone was giving testimony (other than traffic court) a lot of the trial transcript stuff is recorded on audio tape as well be transcribed.
First, thanks to both you and Bricker for you great responses.
On this “articulable suspicion,” does a detainted person have the right to know what it is, or must it simply be something that can be explained to a judge later on?
For example, I’m pulled over, I refuse a search, but the cop says, “You’re going to have to wait a bit while I call in a police dog,” so I fully understand that I’m required to wait around for some undeterminable period of time for the dog to arrive.
Let’s say an hour goes by and we’re still sitting there. I would imagine that if I questioned the officer about my detention and he said something like, “I recently saw a black car pull out of Stan’s Illegal Fireworks Stand, and you have a similar looking car,” I can see that it would be reasonable that I might have to wait a bit longer. (I’m just kind of throwing out a reason there: I’m not clear on how reasonable suspicion differs from probable cause or a investigatory stab in the dark, so work with me here.)
But what if I keep asking, “Why do I have to keep waiting for this dumb dog? When is it going to get here? Why are you detaining me?” and the cop refuses to answer, would that tend to indicate that he doesn’t have a reason to keep me, or might he be allowed to keep his reasons secret during the course of his investigation?
Thanks again for your excellent answers in this thread.
True. The trick is to behave in such a way as to not attract the attention of a cop and to be lucky. Legal niceties work once you actually get to court but it seems to me that out on the street the justice that people get depends upon the conscience of the cop and his or her willingness to respect the civil rights of the person stopped.