Supreme Court results are in!

[drauz]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-in-favor-of-former-va-robert-f-mcdonnell-in-corruption-case/2016/06/27/38526a94-3c75-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html

Bob McDonnell gets let off the hook


“Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time,” the chief justice wrote. “The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns — whether it is the union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore power to their neighborhood after a storm.”

He said the government’s position “could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships” if the union or group made some show of gratitude.

The opinion showed that the justices struggled to identify exactly what an “official act” encompasses, but they were clear about what it is not: “Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act.’ ”

Roberts said that for prosecutors to prevail, they must identify a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” that “may at any time be pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official.

Second, the government must prove that the public official made a decision or took an action on those matters, which Roberts said must be “of the same stripe as a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency or a hearing before a committee.”

Roberts indicated that the meetings and introductions a public official makes are not themselves official acts but could be seen as evidence that the officeholder was up to no good.

“A jury could conclude, for example, that the official was attempting to pressure or advise another official on a pending matter,” Roberts wrote. “And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give that advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be illegal.”

Strict Abortion Laws overturned

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/285080-dems-momentum-on-our-side-in-abortion-fight


In the 5-3 opinion, the court said that Texas had placed an “undue burden” on abortion access by requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The law also required abortion clinics to meet the stricter standards of hospital-style “ambulatory surgical centers.”

Voisine v. United States, a case with implications for gun ownership rights

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-upholds-wide-reach-u-s-gun-ban-domestic-n599816


In a 6-2 ruling, the court upheld the opinion that domestic violence convictions can result in gun ownership restrictions, even if the misdemeanor is only the result of recklessness rather than intent. Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito were in the majority, with Thomas and Sotomayor dissenting.

[kutter]

I really wish someone would explain to me how it is ok for a state to regulate a gun but not abortion. I am struggling a lot with the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to this. Stop being a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

That being said, maybe Texas' law was aimed at limiting abortion, but still seems like a pretty smart idea to have a higher level of care within a reasonable distance. If someone has to drive 3 hours to get an abortion, that also means they will need to be transported 3 hours if something goes wrong. Do people really get that many abortions that a 3 hour trip is that excessive?

[drauz]

If someone has to drive 3 hours to get an abortion, that also means they will need to be transported 3 hours if something goes wrong. Do people really get that many abortions that a 3 hour trip is that excessive?

Well thats not true at all.... Living 3 hours from an abortion clinic != needing 3 hrs to get to a hospital. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the law. Or maybe I do.


I really wish someone would explain to me how it is ok for a state to regulate a gun but not abortion. I am struggling a lot with the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to this. Stop being a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Pretty sure it was 3 conservatives and 3 liberals voting for it, with a liberal and conservative dissenting.

[Gelston]

Well thats not true at all.... Living 3 hours from an abortion clinic != needing 3 hrs to get to a hospital. I think you fundamentally misunderstand the law. Or maybe I do.


It'd basically be driving to far to have the abortion preformed. If something went wrong after she had gone home, a doctor is a doctor. She just goes to the emergency room.

[time4fun]

I really wish someone would explain to me how it is ok for a state to regulate a gun but not abortion. I am struggling a lot with the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to this. Stop being a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

That being said, maybe Texas' law was aimed at limiting abortion, but still seems like a pretty smart idea to have a higher level of care within a reasonable distance. If someone has to drive 3 hours to get an abortion, that also means they will need to be transported 3 hours if something goes wrong. Do people really get that many abortions that a 3 hour trip is that excessive?

There is no hypocrisy here- hate to break it to you. This all fundamentally comes down to the issue of compelling state interest.

SCOTUS ruled that you needed more than the rational basis test (though they seemed to hint that it failed even that), and fundamentally the issue was that there was no compelling state interest in restricting abortion in this way. The impact of the law was that it reduced the number of providers by 50%, looked like it was about to reduce it even further, and there was no evidence that this was a high-risk procedure. They even noted that its rate of complications was lower than a lot of other procedures that don't require admitting privileges. (Your entire point about 3 hours is wrong, by the way. Just because you have to drive 3 hours for a provider doesn't mean that provider is 3 hours away from a hospital) It was a big slap in the face by SCOTUS- basically telling state governments that they can't keep trying to pass legislation that is clearly intended to limit access to abortion under the guise of best interests of the women involved.


I'll also point out that in the gun case- you had Alito and Roberts siding with the majority. They're as conservative as they get. Also, though this case is getting blown up as a big gun rights thing- the specific legal issue here was not that big of a deal. All the case said was that the laws written to prohibit people who are guilty of domestic violence misdemeanors still applied even if they were "only" cited with recklessness. Because to say otherwise would grossly undercut the intention of these laws. This really wasn't some huge Constitutional rights case- it was pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. And there is a compelling state interest- namely the protection of victims of domestic violence- that warrants the imposition on someone's 2nd Amendment rights. Though- and I can't stress this enough- this case was decided based more on the intention of the law than anything else.

The Bill of Rights doesn't prevent the US government from limiting those rights under certain circumstances- it just means that you have to have a REALLY good reason. Protecting victims of domestic violence is a REALLY good reason. Shutting down half of the abortion clinics is not. (You want hypocrisy? If the gun law had shut down half of the gun stores in Texas, you'd be up in arms like a crazy person)

[drauz]

It'd basically be driving to far to have the abortion preformed. If something went wrong after she had gone home, a doctor is a doctor. She just goes to the emergency room.

Yeah, thats what I thought. The whole thing of the law was that they had to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles.

[kutter]

I was not referring to this gun case, frankly I did not even know that one was before the court.

I am talking about the simple fact that either states have the right to regulate something in their borders or they do not. The hypocrisy of saying oh, one thing can be regulated but not the other is ridiculous. You can tell yourself it is otherwise but that does not make it so. The simple fact is that the left has no issue with states that regulate gun sales but they do with states that regulate abortions, both are protected rights, so why is there any difference? The difference is that they like abortions and they do not like guns, plain and simple. I personally abhor abortions, but it is the law, and I am pro death penalty so it would seem idiotic to me to be pro death penalty and pro life, and I know, I know, innocent life and all that, I get it, but pick one side and stand on it. Besides, I am not of the opinion that the Government should be able to tell ANYONE what they can and cannot do with their own body, unless of course you join the military and then they own you.

And it is not just going to a doctor, they had to have a higher level of care, the abortion clinic has a Doc, what good does leaving there and going to your podunk town Doc do, he cannot do anything the clinic Doc could not. I will say it again, it was a requirement for a HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE.

[Jarvan]

Frankly.. I think the law was stupid.

I would have asked how many women died from complications at a clinic that didn't get them to a hospital fast enough.

I mean.. I think abortions are stupid as well... but this law didn't really help matters any.

[Tgo01]

The hypocrisy of saying oh, one thing can be regulated but not the other is ridiculous.

To be fair Republicans do it too; they complain about more gun regulation but at the same time want to put more restrictions on abortions.

Of course the problem with Democrats is they act like they don't do shit like this and it's only those evil Republicans who do underhanded shit like that.

Democrats can never smell their own shit.

[drauz]

I was not referring to this gun case, frankly I did not even know that one was before the court.

I am talking about the simple fact that either states have the right to regulate something in their borders or they do not. The hypocrisy of saying oh, one thing can be regulated but not the other is ridiculous. You can tell yourself it is otherwise but that does not make it so. The simple fact is that the left has no issue with states that regulate gun sales but they do with states that regulate abortions, both are protected rights, so why is there any difference? The difference is that they like abortions and they do not like guns, plain and simple. I personally abhor abortions, but it is the law, and I am pro death penalty so it would seem idiotic to me to be pro death penalty and pro life, and I know, I know, innocent life and all that, I get it, but pick one side and stand on it. Besides, I am not of the opinion that the Government should be able to tell ANYONE what they can and cannot do with their own body, unless of course you join the military and then they own you.

And it is not just going to a doctor, they had to have a higher level of care, the abortion clinic has a Doc, what good does leaving there and going to your podunk town Doc do, he cannot do anything the clinic Doc could not. I will say it again, it was a requirement for a HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE.

They aren't saying you can't regulate it...

[kutter]

Frankly I could give two shits if someone wants to get an abortion, when they stand before the man upstairs either he will be cool with it or he won't, not my place to judge.

And yes Tgo, I know both sides are guilty, it makes me so insane I want to take one of my rifles and find a bell tower somewhere. We have gotten so fucking dumb as a country and society it is AMAZING to me that we can still function.

[Gelston]

Frankly I could give two shits if someone wants to get an abortion, when they stand before the man upstairs either he will be cool with it or he won't, not my place to judge.

And yes Tgo, I know both sides are guilty, it makes me so insane I want to take one of my rifles and find a bell tower somewhere. We have gotten so fucking dumb as a country and society it is AMAZING to me that we can still function.

Damn it, he is going to do it now and we'll get heavy press on the PC Forums.

[Tgo01]

Damn it, he is going to do it now and we'll get heavy press on the PC Forums.

Quick everyone! Delete anything you have posted that was semi racist!!!!

Unless you're a Democrat of course, Democrats get away with saying racist shit.

[Androidpk]

Democrats can never smell their own shit.


-_-

[Androidpk]

Also, Drauz, you missed one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-5-3-that-mistakes-by-officer-dont-undermine-conviction/2016/06/20/f1f7d0d2-36f9-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

[drauz]

Also, Drauz, you missed one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-5-3-that-mistakes-by-officer-dont-undermine-conviction/2016/06/20/f1f7d0d2-36f9-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

HOLY FUCK.... thats just fucking scary.

[Gelston]

Also, Drauz, you missed one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-5-3-that-mistakes-by-officer-dont-undermine-conviction/2016/06/20/f1f7d0d2-36f9-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

Meh, that was so last week.

[Tgo01]

“The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” Sotomayor wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this scrutiny.”

Wut?

"Yeah I know the guy was white and all but...THINK OF THE MINORITIES!!!"

Sotomayor doesn't sound too bright for a supreme court justice. I honestly don't even understand what the dissent argument is.

The officer didn't have reasonable cause to stop someone so therefore the arrest warrant is invalid and any evidence found thereafter is invalid? Like, really?

We need to get Trump in office. We don't need a supreme court filled with morons who think like this.

[Androidpk]

HOLY FUCK.... thats just fucking scary.

Everyone should be a little concerned about this one..

[drauz]

The officer didn't have reasonable cause to stop someone so therefore the arrest warrant is invalid and any evidence found thereafter is invalid? Like, really?

We need to get Trump in office. We don't need a supreme court filled with morons who think like this.

Not saying the arrest warrant was invalid but that the drugs found should be inadmissible.

You combine this ruling with this (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/when-cops-dont-know-the-law/383861/) ruling and it becomes scary how much power the cops really have.

[Tgo01]

Not saying the arrest warrant was invalid but that the drugs found should be inadmissible.

Why? If the arrest warrant was valid then the drugs that came from said search should be admissible.

[Gelston]

Wut?

"Yeah I know the guy was white and all but...THINK OF THE MINORITIES!!!"

Sotomayor doesn't sound too bright for a supreme court justice. I honestly don't even understand what the dissent argument is.

The officer didn't have reasonable cause to stop someone so therefore the arrest warrant is invalid and any evidence found thereafter is invalid? Like, really?

We need to get Trump in office. We don't need a supreme court filled with morons who think like this.

It basically means if you are illegally stopped and searched and they find illegal shit on you, but they then find out you have an arrest warrant, all that shit is now admissible in court. So, don't get a warrant for ANYTHING.

[Tgo01]

It basically means if you are illegally stopped and searched and they find illegal shit on you, but they then find out you have an arrest warrant, all that shit is now admissible in court. So, don't get a warrant for ANYTHING.

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like he stopped the guy, then found out he had a warrant, then searched him.

But yeah, if you have a warrant out for your arrest you probably shouldn't leave a drug house with drugs in your possession.

[drauz]

Why? If the arrest warrant was valid then the drugs that came from said search should be admissible.

I was clarifying her position for you. She never said the arrest warrant wasn't valid. Or maybe I missed that part.

[drauz]

Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like he stopped the guy, then found out he had a warrant, then searched him.

But yeah, if you have a warrant out for your arrest you probably shouldn't leave a drug house with drugs in your possession.

The whole problem is he stopped him illegally. Even Thomas says the stop was illegal.

[Tgo01]

I was clarifying her position for you. She never said the arrest warrant wasn't valid. Or maybe I missed that part.

But then she has no position. The guy had a warrant out for this arrest, that gave the officer the right to search him.

I don't think we should get into the habit of not executing arrest warrants because of the circumstances of the interaction between the suspect and the officer.

This would be a totally different story if there was no arrest warrant.

[Tgo01]

The whole problem is he stopped him illegally. Even Thomas says the stop was illegal.

Then sue the police department and the officer.

[drauz]

Then sue the police department and the officer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

[drauz]

But then she has no position. The guy had a warrant out for this arrest, that gave the officer the right to search him.

I don't think we should get into the habit of not executing search warrants because of the circumstances of the interaction between the suspect and the officer.

This would be a totally different story if there was no search warrant.

This would be a totally different story had the stop not taken place.

[Gelston]

Then sue the police department and the officer.

I imagine that'd be hard to do now that the Supreme Court has basically said stops aren't illegal if, after the fact, they determine the stopee had a warrant.

[Tgo01]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

But the evidence wasn't obtained through illegal means. The arrest warrant was valid, thus the search was valid.

There are two different actions going on here:

The initial stop...which was apparently illegal
The arrest warrant...which apparently was perfectly valid thus the search was valid.

To my knowledge the police don't need any sort of special time or place to execute an arrest warrant; if they find you and you have a warrant out for your arrest then they can arrest you.

[Tgo01]

This would be a totally different story had the stop not taken place.

Then the guy should have known better than to carry around drugs while having a warrant out for his arrest.


I imagine that'd be hard to do now that the Supreme Court has basically said stops aren't illegal if, after the fact, they determine the stopee had a warrant.

I don't think the supreme court is ruling that illegal stops are now legal as long as the person has a warrant out for their arrest.

[Gelston]

I don't think the supreme court is ruling that illegal stops are now legal as long as the person has a warrant out for their arrest.

Um, they sure as hell just did. The evidence that was illegally obtained was made legal with that ruling. The stop was therefor rendered legal.

[drauz]

I imagine that'd be hard to do now that the Supreme Court has basically said stops aren't illegal if, after the fact, they determine the stopee had a warrant.

This is what I meant, with the other ruling I cited (not having to know if something is lawful or not) they can stop you and say just about anything was the reason.

[Gelston]

This is what I meant, with the other ruling I cited (not having to know if something is lawful or not) they can stop you and say just about anything was the reason.

We still have some protections, as long as you don't have a warrant. You can sue the fuck out of them for harassment and stuff. If you have a bench warrant for parking tickets or some shit though, you are screwed.

[Tgo01]

Um, they sure as hell just did. The evidence that was illegally obtained was made legal with that ruling. The stop was therefor rendered legal.

The evidence was not obtained through illegal means, it was obtained via a legal and valid arrest warrant.


This is what I meant, with the other ruling I cited (not having to know if something is lawful or not) they can stop you and say just about anything was the reason.

That's not what happened in the other case you linked, what happened was the break light law wasn't very clear to begin with. It even states in the article that the 1 or 2 brake light law wasn't even clarified until the during the appeals process of the case in question.

[drauz]

But the evidence wasn't obtained through illegal means. The arrest warrant was valid, thus the search was valid.

There are two different actions going on here:

The initial stop...which was apparently illegal
The arrest warrant...which apparently was perfectly valid thus the search was valid.

To my knowledge the police don't need any sort of special time or place to execute an arrest warrant; if they find you and you have a warrant out for your arrest then they can arrest you.

None of what happened, after the stop, would have happened had the illegal stop not been made. Its a fine line and a slippery slope. Just glad I don't live in an stop and ID state.

[Gelston]

The evidence was not obtained through illegal means, it was obtained via a legal and valid arrest warrant.


It wasn't obtained via an arrest warrant. It was obtained via an illegal stop. They LATER found out he had a warrant.

This is exactly how you turn the US into a police state.

[drauz]

That's not what happened in the other case you linked, what happened was the break light law wasn't very clear to begin with. It even states in the article that the 1 or 2 brake light law wasn't even clarified until the during the appeals process of the case in question.

What are you talking about? What happened in that particular case doesn't even matter. Its what the SCOTUS ruling says that matters. If a cop thinks something is illegal (if it is or not) then he can stop and question/ID you.

[Tgo01]

None of what happened, after the stop, would have happened had the illegal stop not been made.

The guy still had a warrant out for his arrest. Honestly I don't even think the police need a reason to execute an arrest warrant.

Let's put it this way, let's say somehow the officer knew who the guy was and knew he had a warrant out for his arrest before he even pulled him over, he would have been totally justified in pulling him over, arresting him, and searching him, right? None of that is illegal to my knowledge.

So the only problem we're having is the officer had no real reason to pull him over, so why should that automatically make everything else that was 100% legal go away?


It wasn't obtained via an arrest warrant. It was obtained via an illegal stop. They LATER found out he had a warrant.

Here is what the first paragraph of the SCOTUS decision states:

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.

[Androidpk]

This is exactly how you turn the US into a police state.

Would that be so bad?

[Tgo01]

What are you talking about? What happened in that particular case doesn't even matter. Its what the SCOTUS ruling says that matters. If a cop thinks something is illegal (if it is or not) then he can stop and question/ID you.

Yes it does matter in this case because it's written in the SCOTUS decision:

“If the statute is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake,” she wrote. “But if not, not.”

So if the cop makes a reasonable mistake in interpreting a law then it's fine.

The cop can't just say he honestly thought it was illegal to wear blue jeans and a white shirt therefore his actions are valid.

[Gelston]

Yes it does matter in this case because it's written in the SCOTUS decision:

“If the statute is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake,” she wrote. “But if not, not.”

So if the cop makes a reasonable mistake in interpreting a law then it's fine.

The cop can't just say he honestly thought it was illegal to wear blue jeans and a white shirt therefore his actions are valid.

Sagging is illegal in my city. What is considered sagging?

[Tgo01]

Sagging is illegal in my city. What is considered sagging?

Exactly, that could be an ambiguous law considering the circumstances.

[kcostell]

As a side note:


...with Thomas and Sotomayor dissenting.

is not a pair I would have expected to see together on the short side of a 6-2 decision about, well...anything.

[Gelston]

Exactly, that could be an ambiguous law considering the circumstances.

But see, with this, even a completely illegal stop... One that had no reason, would be rendered legal. Because of a warrant discovered after the fact.

[Tgo01]

But see, with this, even a completely illegal stop... One that had no reason, would be rendered legal. Because of a warrant discovered after the fact.

I don't think the SCOTUS is saying the stop was legal, they are saying the illegal stop does not change the fact that the guy had a warrant out for his arrest and thus the officer's actions at that point were legal.

If I'm wrong on that part then I disagree with their assertion but agree with their overall ruling.

[time4fun]

I don't think the SCOTUS is saying the stop was legal, they are saying the illegal stop does not change the fact that the guy had a warrant out for his arrest and thus the officer's actions at that point were legal.

If I'm wrong on that part then I disagree with their assertion but agree with their overall ruling.

You are correct.

Which is what makes the decision so horrifying. SCOTUS just sent a clear message- Police don't have to respect Due Process rights any longer.

[Gelston]

I don't think the SCOTUS is saying the stop was legal, they are saying the illegal stop does not change the fact that the guy had a warrant out for his arrest and thus the officer's actions at that point were legal.

If I'm wrong on that part then I disagree with their assertion but agree with their overall ruling.

Dude, the evidence pulled off him which lead to being charged with a crime was acquired DUE TO an illegal stop. I'm not talking about the warrant being illegal or not. The warrant was legal. The police didn't know he HAD a warrant when they stopped him. This was determined AFTER they had already done the illegal stop.

[Tgo01]

You are correct.

Which is what makes the decision so horrifying. SCOTUS just sent a clear message- Police don't have to respect Due Process rights any longer.

How can I be correct and the SCOTUS is saying the police don't have to follow due process any longer? I'm either wrong and that's what they're saying, or I'm right and that's exactly not what they're saying.

The SCOTUS recognized the officer's initial stop was illegal, thus if he had no reasonable cause to search him then any evidence found would be inadmissible because the stop and search were illegal.

The SCOTUS isn't saying that, they are saying the stop was illegal but the search wasn't.

Basically an officer's illegal actions do not make a criminal's illegal actions go away.

If an officer runs a red light and this illegal action enables him to witness someone speeding does this mean the officer can't then give the speeder a ticket because if he had never engaged in that illegal action he wouldn't have noticed the person's illegal action?

[Tgo01]

Dude, the evidence pulled off him which lead to being charged with a crime was acquired DUE TO an illegal stop.

And that's where I disagree, the evidence was found due to the arrest warrant, not the illegal stop.

As I said above if the officer had no valid reason to search him then the drugs would have been inadmissible because the SCOTUS agrees the stop was illegal, not the search.

[Gelston]

How can I be correct and the SCOTUS is saying the police don't have to follow due process any longer? I'm either wrong and that's what they're saying, or I'm right and that's exactly not what they're saying.

The SCOTUS recognized the officer's initial stop was illegal, thus if he had no reasonable cause to search him then any evidence found would be inadmissible because the stop and search were illegal.

The SCOTUS isn't saying that, they are saying the stop was illegal but the search wasn't.

Basically an officer's illegal actions do not make a criminals illegal actions go away.

If an officer runs a red light and this illegal action enables him to witness someone speeding does this mean the officer can't then give the speeder a ticket because if he had never engaged in that illegal action he wouldn't have noticed the person's illegal action?

What reasonable cause did they have to search him? They didn't have one. The warrant was AFTER they illegally stopped and illegally searched him. No one is saying his warrant went away. The warrant was there. They charged and tried him for an additional crime BASED ON the items they got from the illegal stop and search.


And that's where I disagree, the evidence was found due to the arrest warrant, not the illegal stop.

As I said above if the officer had no valid reason to search him then the drugs would have been inadmissible because the SCOTUS agrees the stop was illegal, not the search.

WTF dude. He wasn't stopped because of the warrant. THEY DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD A WARRANT WHEN THEY STOPPED HIM.

[Jarvan]

The whole problem is he stopped him illegally. Even Thomas says the stop was illegal.

I have no problem with an officer stopping someone leaving a suspected drug house and asking their name. If the officer hand tackled him, put him in handcuffs, searched him, found drugs.. THEN called and found out he had a warrant... yeah, that would be bullshit.

A cop is not allowed to ask you your name now? They can't watch a drug house for possible criminal activity unless of course they first know there is criminal activity that they have seen.. what?

[Tgo01]

What reasonable cause did they have to search him? They didn't have one.

Yes they did, the arrest warrant.


The warrant was AFTER they illegally stopped and illegally searched him.

I quoted the first paragraph of the SCOTUS decision where it states the officer searched him after he found out about the arrest warrant and after he had arrested him for said arrest warrant.

If there is more to this case then what I read on the SCOTUS decision I would be interested in reading it.

[Gelston]

I have no problem with an officer stopping someone leaving a suspected drug house and asking their name. If the officer hand tackled him, put him in handcuffs, searched him, found drugs.. THEN called and found out he had a warrant... yeah, that would be bullshit.

A cop is not allowed to ask you your name now? They can't watch a drug house for possible criminal activity unless of course they first know there is criminal activity that they have seen.. what?

It is your legal right to not tell the officer your name. If they have no reason, they can't detain you.

[drauz]

Yes it does matter in this case because it's written in the SCOTUS decision:

“If the statute is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake,” she wrote. “But if not, not.”

So if the cop makes a reasonable mistake in interpreting a law then it's fine.

The cop can't just say he honestly thought it was illegal to wear blue jeans and a white shirt therefore his actions are valid.

Does the concurrence have validity or is it only the Opinion?

[Tgo01]

Does the concurrence have validity or is it only the Opinion?

I'm not 100% positive but I'm pretty sure if the SCOTUS decision is written this way then a precedent has been set.

[time4fun]

Does the concurrence have validity or is it only the Opinion?

Concurrence doesn't count as precedent. It can be cited later, but there's no legal force that compels another Judge to follow the reasoning.

[Jarvan]

What are you talking about? What happened in that particular case doesn't even matter. Its what the SCOTUS ruling says that matters. If a cop thinks something is illegal (if it is or not) then he can stop and question/ID you.

Hasn't this been the case for years?

I remember back when I was 20, me and my friend went for a walk at 2 am. We were stopped by a cop, and asked to see our ID. Because we were walking down a street at 2 am. We were dressed in camo mind you.

Then there was the time I was stopped by a cop at 3:30 AM walking down a street in a fairly bad neighborhood. I was in a 3 piece suit, reading a book. He asked if I was ok, and asked for ID, and where I was going.

Frankly.. if there is something seriously out of the ordinary.. don't you want them to stop them and ask what's up?

[Jarvan]

It is your legal right to not tell the officer your name. If they have no reason, they can't detain you.

That just makes this person fucking stupid then, doesn't it?

[drauz]

I have no problem with an officer stopping someone leaving a suspected drug house and asking their name. If the officer hand tackled him, put him in handcuffs, searched him, found drugs.. THEN called and found out he had a warrant... yeah, that would be bullshit.

A cop is not allowed to ask you your name now? They can't watch a drug house for possible criminal activity unless of course they first know there is criminal activity that they have seen.. what?

First I have a problem with "an anonymous tip" leading to this kind of behavior. Surveillance I can live with from an anonymous tip, but to start harassing people leaving from that house with ZERO proof and just the word of a random person is where I start to have a problem.

A cop if allowed to ask you anything as long as the conversation is consensual. You have to be free to leave at anytime, assuming he can't articulate a crime you have/will commit. This is why you see those videos where people ask "Am I being detained or am I free to go".

[drauz]

I'm not 100% positive but I'm pretty sure if the SCOTUS decision is written this way then a precedent has been set.

I ask because you quoted the concurrence and not the opinion.

[time4fun]

Yes they did, the arrest warrant.



I quoted the first paragraph of the SCOTUS decision where it states the officer searched him after he found out about the arrest warrant and after he had arrested him for said arrest warrant.

If there is more to this case then what I read on the SCOTUS decision I would be interested in reading it.

You're missing the point of the Case. Prior to this case, the fact that there was no probable cause for the stop would have rendered everything that happened afterwards void. In this specific situation, the police engaged in an illegal search and accidentally stumbled upon someone who had an outstanding warrant. The reason why this case is so disturbing is it grants Police full license to obtain evidence illegally and still have it count as admissible. And that begs the question- if you can use it to arrest someone, how illegal is it really?

[Gelston]

That just makes this person fucking stupid then, doesn't it?

The detainment at the beginning was illegal. He was then searched an additional charges were filed due to the evidence obtained after the warrant was discovered. Do you know what the warrant was for? It was a traffic violation. The type that they don't arrest people for unless you are legally stopped and ID'd.

[Gelston]

This is the part that most gets at me... “The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,”. This isn't hyperbole, this is fact and it happened. This isn't that "slippery slope" or "could lead to" stuff. This happened. And it is legal now.

[Tgo01]

I ask because you quoted the concurrence and not the opinion.

My bad. Even the opinion appears to have similar language:

Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.


You're missing the point of the Case. Prior to this case, the fact that there was no probable cause for the stop would have rendered everything that happened afterwards void. In this specific situation, the police engaged in an illegal search and accidentally stumbled upon someone who had an outstanding warrant.

I am not missing anything, I just happen to agree with the opinion.

And again, the search was AFTER the man had been arrested because of said arrest warrant. If there is something I am misunderstanding I would love to see a source on this.

[drauz]

Hasn't this been the case for years?

Not legally, no.


Frankly.. if there is something seriously out of the ordinary.. don't you want them to stop them and ask what's up?

I don't mind them trying to be friendly or helpful. Asking if everything is ok or even for ID is perfectly fine, but once you say yes or refuse to ID thats where it should end (assuming you don't live in a stop and ID state).

[time4fun]

This is the part that most gets at me... “The court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights,”. This isn't hyperbole, this is fact and it happened.

Yeah- Due Process just took a massive hit for reasons that are completely unclear. This has been a bedrock of our legal protections for as long as any of us have been alive. There's no longer any reason to deal with probable cause or with warrants. Just jump in, illegally search and seize, and as long as you find *anything* at all- you're completely justified.

That's not justice. That's a police state.

[Tgo01]

Just jump in, illegally search and seize, and as long as you find *anything* at all- you're completely justified.

That's not at all what happened. Tone down the hyperbole a few notches.

[time4fun]

My bad. Even the opinion appears to have similar language:

Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.



I am not missing anything, I just happen to agree with the opinion.

And again, the search was AFTER the man had been arrested because of said search arrest. If there is something I am misunderstanding I would love to see a source on this.

Groan. All of this happened AFTER an illegal search. SCOTUS even admitted that the Police has no right to stop this person. You have to pull your brain out of this specific situation and think about the repercussions of a decision like this. There is a reason why Sotomayer wrote such a strong opinion. The way this decision interacts with racial profiling alone is horrifying.

[drauz]

And again, the search was AFTER the man had been arrested because of said search arrest. If there is something I am misunderstanding I would love to see a source on this.

Its a fine line. I have zero doubt it will be used by police more than the Supreme Court thinks. I get where you are coming from and I disagree. While I think he should still be arrested for the arrest warrant, anything else should be thrown out because it all began with an illegal stop.

[Gelston]

That's not at all what happened. Tone down the hyperbole a few notches.

Doesn't really have to tone it down much. And you know this shit is going to be abused to high fucking heaven.


Its a fine line. I have zero doubt it will be used by police more than the Supreme Court thinks. I get where you are coming from and I disagree. While I think he should still be arrested for the arrest warrant, anything else should be thrown out because it all began with an illegal stop.

I think he should be arrested for his failure to pay a traffic ticket too. The other stuff was fruit from the poisonous tree.

[drauz]

Groan. All of this happened AFTER an illegal search. SCOTUS even admitted that the Police has no right to stop this person. You have to pull your brain out of this specific situation and think about the repercussions of a decision like this. There is a reason why Sotomayer wrote such a strong opinion. The way this decision interacts with racial profiling alone is horrifying.

Tgo1 is actually right, if I understand it correctly here is the sequence of events.

Guy is stopped and asked for ID.
Cop runs the guys name and finds a warrant.
Guy is arrested and then searched, which he is able to do when arresting someone.

[Tgo01]

Groan. All of this happened AFTER an illegal search.

I'll quote the first paragraph of the SCOTUS decision once again:


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.

The search happened after the officer found out he had an arrest warrant and after he had arrested the suspect.

Again, if you're going by something different then I would love to read the source.

[Gelston]

Tgo1 is actually right, if I understand it correctly here is the sequence of events.

Guy is stopped and asked for ID.
Cop runs the guys name and finds a warrant.
Guy is arrested and then searched, which he is able to do when arresting someone.

He was apparently detained first. The name was run and the warrant found and he was searched. It still doesn't justify the stop, nor the new charge or evidence for such. The warrant was the type they don't go looking for you for. It is the type they one day get you for when you get another speeding ticket or something. It was a traffic misdemeanor.

Again, it is ALL fruit from the poisonous tree. The man should not have been stopped. The entire chain of events shouldn't have happened. As it did though, the drug charge shouldn't have been doable due to lack of evidence. I'm not saying he should get his drugs back, they should be destroyed, but they shouldn't be used in court as evidence.

[time4fun]

Tgo1 is actually right, if I understand it correctly here is the sequence of events.

Guy is stopped and asked for ID.
Cop runs the guys name and finds a warrant.
Guy is arrested and then searched, which he is able to do when arresting someone.

The problem here is that there was no probable cause for stopping him. That's not a small thing. SCOTUS opened a massive loophole in Due Process rights. The result is that the end justified the means. It literally means they don't even have to bother with probable cause anymore- the evidence from illegal searches and detainment are completely admissible.

i.e. those searches are not functionally illegal anymore.

[Tgo01]

Doesn't really have to tone it down much.

I think there is a huge difference between pulling someone over, discovering the person has an arrest warrant, arresting said person, then searching them because of said arrest and literally just pulling people over at random and searching them and as long as they find something they are in the clear.

The SCOTUS did not say the latter is at all legal.

[drauz]

My bad. Even the opinion appears to have similar language:

Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

From the previous quote, its night and day. I would much rather have that concurrence opinion than the actual opinion.

[Gelston]

Look, I'm against drugs on the street. I'm happy there are some off of it now, I really am. I just think it should all be done the right way. To me, this decision is the eroding of one of the amendments that protects us. I don't like ANY of the amendments to be eroded. I lvoe them all, whether it is the 1st, the 2nd, the 4th, whatever. Obviously the majority of the Supreme Court feels this was all within the protections of the Constitution. I will disagree, along with the two Justices. I think it is a very dangerous thing that has transpired.

[Gelston]

I think there is a huge difference between pulling someone over, discovering the person has an arrest warrant, arresting said person, then searching them because of said arrest and literally just pulling people over at random and searching them and as long as they find something they are in the clear.

The SCOTUS did not say the latter is at all legal.

Did they (the Police Department) do anything to the officer for the illegal stop?

[drauz]

He was apparently detained first. The name was run and the warrant found and he was searched. It still doesn't justify the stop, nor the new charge or evidence for such. The warrant was the type they don't go looking for you for. It is the type they one day get you for when you get another speeding ticket or something. It was a traffic misdemeanor.

Again, it is ALL fruit from the poisonous tree. The man should not have been stopped. The entire chain of events shouldn't have happened. As it did though, the drug charge shouldn't have been doable due to lack of evidence. I'm not saying he should get his drugs back, they should be destroyed, but they shouldn't be used in court as evidence.

I was just correcting time4fun on the sequence of events. I already agreed with everything you're saying.

[Tgo01]

It literally means they don't even have to bother with probable cause anymore- the evidence from illegal searches and detainment are completely admissible.

No it doesn't mean any of that. The SCOTUS decision admits the STOP was illegal, NOT the search. That is a huge difference.

This really all comes down to the arrest warrant, if there was no arrest warrant and the officer still searched the guy with no probable cause then the drug evidence would have been thrown out. This all happened because of the arrest warrant.

[time4fun]

I was just correcting time4fun on the sequence of events. I already agreed with everything you're saying.

You're right. When I said "search", I should have said "stop".

But the point remains. Every step after that stop should have been illegal, and any evidence in that chain should have been inadmissible.

[Gelston]

No it doesn't mean any of that. The SCOTUS decision admits the STOP was illegal, NOT the search. That is a huge difference.

This really all comes down to the arrest warrant, if there was no arrest warrant and the officer still searched the guy with no probable cause then the drug evidence would have been thrown out. This all happened because of the arrest warrant.

No, it all happened because of the illegal stop. He wouldn't have been discovered to have a traffic warrant if it weren't for the illegal stop.

[Tgo01]

Did they (the Police Department) do anything to the officer for the illegal stop?

And that's what I'm saying, from my understanding the officer isn't off the hook for conducting an illegal stop. Perhaps the guy has some legal recourse in regards to the legal stop, what that is I honestly have no idea, it's probably not even worth pursuing.

But the SCOTUS is saying these are two separate issues: the illegal stop and the legal search.

The SCOTUS isn't saying the legal search made the illegal stop legal, they are saying the illegal stop is a completely different issue and has no bearing on the legal search.

[time4fun]

No, it all happened because of the illegal stop. He wouldn't have been discovered to have a traffic warrant if it weren't for the illegal stop.

Give up. It's like talking to a damn wall. He genuinely doesn't understand the argument here.

[Gelston]

And that's what I'm saying, from my understanding the officer isn't off the hook for conducting an illegal stop. Perhaps the guy has some legal recourse in regards to the legal stop, what that is I honestly have no idea, it's probably not even worth pursuing.

But the SCOTUS is saying these are two separate issues: the illegal stop and the legal search.

The SCOTUS isn't saying the legal search made the illegal stop legal, they are saying the illegal stop is a completely different issue and has no bearing on the legal search.

But in essence they are. This all reeks of fruit from the poisonous tree. Something that is taught to every lawyer and police officer. I got taught it when I augmented as an MP about ten years ago. The stop was illegal, so that makes the entire tree illegal. The search was a branch, the fruit (evidence) came from that branch. The fruit is poison.

[Tgo01]

Every step after that stop should have been illegal, and any evidence in that chain should have been inadmissible.

You're basically saying an officer can't enforce the law because of the officer's illegal actions.

The SCOTUS is saying it doesn't work like that, and for good reason.

What if after the officer pulled him over the driver got out and kicked someone in the nuts who was walking by. The officer would be well within his rights to arrest said person, search him, and provide testimony in trial if there was ever a trial, correct? Or are you saying the officer's hands are completely tied until...when, exactly? When does the officer's illegal actions expire and he's able to enforce the law again?

[Tgo01]

But in essence they are. This all reeks of fruit from the poisonous tree. Something that is taught to every lawyer and police officer. I got taught it when I augmented as an MP about ten years ago. The stop was illegal, so that makes the entire tree illegal. The search was a branch, the fruit came from that branch. The fruit is poison.

The search was legal though, therefore we are now on a different branch filled with juicy fruit.

Like I said before if the officer just happened to recognize this guy and knew there was a warrant out for his arrest then EVERYTHING the officer did would have been legal, right?

That is the distinction the SCOTUS is making here, the officer's illegal actions doesn't make the very legal procedures he followed any less legal.

[Gelston]

You're basically saying an officer can't enforce the law because of the officer's illegal actions.

The SCOTUS is saying it doesn't work like that, and for good reason.

What if after the officer pulled him over the driver got out and kicked someone in the nuts who was walking by. The officer would be well within his rights to arrest said person, search him, and provide testimony in trial if there was ever a trial, correct? Or are you saying the officer's hands are completely tied until...when, exactly? When does the officer's illegal actions expire and he's able to enforce the law again?

No, because the person just committed assault infront of the officer. Totally different deal, guy.

[time4fun]

You're basically saying an officer can't enforce the law because of the officer's illegal actions.

The SCOTUS is saying it doesn't work like that, and for good reason.



Ignoring your completely irrelevant example (there's probably cause there- they saw the whole thing)

YES. That is ALWAYS how it has worked. It is literally the only way to ensure Due Process rights- to say that anything that comes from an illegal detainment, search, and/or seizure is inadmissible in Court.

Otherwise, there are zero consequences for ignoring someone's Due Process rights in these situations, and, even worse, there's now incentive to ignore Due Process. Nothing will happen to this cop. Nothing will happen to any cop. SCOTUS just opened up a horrendous can of worms.

If there is no consequence for an illegal detainment, search, and/or seizure- then how is it illegal?

[drauz]

You're basically saying an officer can't enforce the law because of the officer's illegal actions.

The SCOTUS is saying it doesn't work like that, and for good reason.

What if after the officer pulled him over the driver got out and kicked someone in the nuts who was walking by. The officer would be well within his rights to arrest said person, search him, and provide testimony in trial if there was ever a trial, correct? Or are you saying the officer's hands are completely tied until...when, exactly? When does the officer's illegal actions expire and he's able to enforce the law again?

Once their initial interaction is concluded and the person is free to leave. That is also not how the fruit of the poisonous tree works.

[Gelston]

No, because the person just committed assault infront of the officer. Totally different deal, guy.

Sorry, I meant battery.

[Gelston]

Haha, this whole discussion doesn't matter anymore anyways. The Supreme Court said the evidence is admissible, so it is what it is. I'm curious to see how much individual agencies will abuse the fuck out of this... Like a lot do with charging you with resisting arrest but that is the only charge.

[Tgo01]

Ignoring your completely irrelevant example (there's probably cause there- they saw the whole thing)

Of course you're ignoring my analogy because you know it totally destroys your entire argument.


to say that anything that comes from an illegal detainment, search, and/or seizure is inadmissible in Court.

And once again...THE SEARCH WAS LEGAL.


Otherwise, there are zero consequences for ignoring someone's Due Process rights in these situations, and, even worse, there's now incentive to ignore Due Process. Nothing will happen to this cop. Nothing will happen to any cop. SCOTUS just opened up a horrendous can of worms.

Maybe something should happen to this cop...FOR THE ILLEGAL STOP.

Again, the SCOTUS even admitted the stop was illegal. The SCOTUS didn't say the cop's initial illegal stop suddenly became legal.

[Tgo01]

No, because the person just committed assault infront of the officer. Totally different deal, guy.

And the guy still had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

[Gelston]

And the guy still had an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

What? Are you talking about your made up scenario?

[Tgo01]

What? Are you talking about your made up scenario?

No, in this case the very real scenario where the guy did have an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

That's the point I was trying to make. In my made up scenario the officer was legally able to arrest and search him because he witnessed him committing a crime, even though he illegally stopped him first.

In the real scenario the officer was able to arrest him and search him because he had a warrant out for his arrest, even though he illegally stopped him first.

[Gelston]

No, in this case the very real scenario where the guy did have an outstanding warrant for his arrest.

That's the point I was trying to make. In my made up scenario the officer was legally able to arrest and search him because he witnessed him committing a crime, even though he illegally stopped him first.

In the real scenario the officer was able to arrest him and search him because he had a warrant out for his arrest, even though he illegally stopped him first.

Yes, the guy had a traffic warrant. He was illegally stopped and the warrant was discovered. That is different from a man being illegally stopped and then actively committing battery on someone.

[drauz]

In the real scenario the officer was able to arrest him and search him because he had a warrant out for his arrest, even though he illegally stopped him first.

Information he was only able to attain because of an illegal stop.

[Tgo01]

That is different from a man being illegally stopped and then actively committing battery on someone.

Why is it different though?

In both cases the illegal action of the officer had no bearing on the illegal action of the driver. The illegal action of the driver in the real scenario is of course whatever he did to earn an arrest warrant.

[Gelston]

Why is it different though?

In both cases the illegal action of the officer had no bearing on the illegal action of the driver. The illegal action of the driver in the real scenario is of course whatever he did to earn an arrest warrant.

The warrant is information the officer wouldn't have obtained without an illegal stop. That isn't something that just floats around above someone's head. A man committing battery in public is something an officer can view, stop or not.

[drauz]

Why is it different though?

In both cases the illegal action of the officer had no bearing on the illegal action of the driver. The illegal action of the driver in the real scenario is of course whatever he did to earn an arrest warrant.

One isn't leading to the other, unless you are saying the guy got out and kicked a guy in the nuts ONLY because he got pulled over illegally.

[drauz]

So I was looking up ambiguous laws in my state and found this. This is why you should never talk to police!


https://vacode.org/18.2-344/
Fornication.

Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

[Gelston]

So I was looking up ambiguous laws in my state and found this. This is why you should never talk to police!

It is a class I felony is wisconsin.

[Tgo01]

Information he was only able to attain because of an illegal stop.

It shouldn't matter.

The officer didn't glean any evidence of a crime from his illegal stop, all he found out was the guy's name.

[Gelston]

It shouldn't matter.

The officer didn't glean any evidence of a crime from his illegal stop, all he found out was the guy's name.

He gleaned all the evidence of a crime from the illegal stop. How do you not understand that without the stop, none of this happens? Do you think he just magically arrests the guy for the traffic warrant without the illegal stop and finds all these sweet drugs to charge him with another crime?

[time4fun]

One isn't leading to the other, unless you are saying the guy got out and kicked a guy in the nuts ONLY because he got pulled over illegally.

In which case it STILL wouldn't be relevant- since it's a brand new crime being committed during the illegal stop, not evidence of a crime that started prior to the stop, that a cop would otherwise have not been able to know about.

And that distinction VERY MUCH matters.

[Tgo01]

unless you are saying the guy got out and kicked a guy in the nuts ONLY because he got pulled over illegally.

Maybe he did. He was so angry from being pulled over that he kicked some guy in the nuts.

[Gelston]

Maybe he did. He was so angry from being pulled over that he kicked some guy in the nuts.

Then he should have kicked the officer in the nuts. He'd probably get tazed first though.

[drauz]

It shouldn't matter.

The officer didn't glean any evidence of a crime from his illegal stop, all he found out was the guy's name.

That is where we disagree. Its not like the guy dropped his wallet and the officer saw it and tried to return it but ran his name first. Nothing would have happened at all (that night) if the officer hadn't performed an illegal stop.

[Tgo01]

He gleaned all the evidence of a crime from the illegal stop.

No he didn't. All he found out from the stop was the guy's name. That's sort of the SCOTUS' entire point, the arrest warrant was for something totally separate from the initial stop which is why the subsequent arrest, search, and admission of evidence is all legal.


In which case it STILL wouldn't be relevant- since it's a brand new crime being committed during the illegal stop, not evidence of a crime that started prior to the stop, that a cop would otherwise have not been able to know about.

So you are literally arguing that since the crime for the arrest warrant is "old" it somehow changes the narrative?

[Tgo01]

Nothing would have happened at all (that night) if the officer hadn't performed an illegal stop.

Likewise nothing would have happened at all if the guy didn't have a warrant out for his arrest.

[time4fun]

It shouldn't matter.

The officer didn't glean any evidence of a crime from his illegal stop, all he found out was the guy's name.

By SCOTUS's reasoning- the cops could break into your home with no warrant and no probable cause, see your name on one of your bills, find out you just happened to have an outstanding warrant for running a red light, and then submit everything they find in your house as evidence for as many other crimes they just happen to catch you committing.

And a Judge would say "Police- you should never have done that. Bad Police!" while sending you to prison nonetheless.

So, because you have an outstanding traffic violation, your Due Process rights can be completely ignored, and you have no recourse at all. And now- why the hell wouldn't the cop just go to it to your neighbor tomorrow? And their neighbor the next day? What's to stop them?

Tell me how this doesn't matter.

[Tgo01]

By SCOTUS's reasoning- the cops could break into your home with no warrant and no probable cause, see your name on one of your bills, find out you just happened to have an outstanding warrant for running a red light, and then submit everything they find in your house as evidence for as many other crimes they just happen to catch you committing.


...no...

The officer was conducting an investigation, he asked someone some questions. You are now literally saying this is the same thing as the cops breaking into your home...I honestly can't even finish typing that out it's so crazy.


And now- why the hell wouldn't the cop just go to it to your neighbor tomorrow? And their neighbor the next day? What's to stop them?

Are you being serious now or just trolling the ever living shit out of me?

[drauz]

Likewise nothing would have happened at all if the guy didn't have a warrant out for his arrest.

Have you never been stopped by the police? I have a marijuana possession charge from when I was 18-19, almost 20 years later if I get pulled over for anything there is now magically a smell of weed in the car. Point is, if a cop wants to search you, they will generally find a way especially when they think it will be your word against theirs.

[time4fun]

...no...

The officer was conducting an investigation, he asked someone some questions. You are now literally saying this is the same thing as the cops breaking into your home...I honestly can't even finish typing that out it's so crazy.



Are you being serious now or just trolling the ever living shit out of me?

You have a serious inability to apply abstract concepts to novel situations. Which, by the way,is the entire point of law.

The Court's reasoning is not restricted to stopping someone on the street. The Court's reasoning can be applied to any situation where an illegal detainment, search, or seizure for anyone with an outstanding warrant (even something as simple as a traffic violation) that leads to evidence of a third, unrelated crime that previously would have been inadmissible.

That's why everyone but you sees a problem here. Everyone else is able to see how the logic can be applied to a diverse set of circumstances and abused to deprive people of their 4th Amendment rights with absolutely no consequences for the Police nor protections for the citizen. Whereas all you can see is one guy stopped on one night who happened to be committing a crime.

[Gelston]

I just saw this video. Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEXTVe7MCQ

Nothing to do with this story.

[drauz]

I think the biggest problem I have with this, is that it erodes the fruit from the poisonous tree argument.

[drauz]

...no...

The officer was conducting an investigation, he asked someone some questions. You are now literally saying this is the same thing as the cops breaking into your home...I honestly can't even finish typing that out it's so crazy.



Are you being serious now or just trolling the ever living shit out of me?

Here is a situation. SWAT kicks in the wrong door (my door). They find my bong and weed. Should I be charged?

[Tgo01]

Point is, if a cop wants to search you, they will generally find a way especially when they think it will be your word against theirs.

That may be, but then we're just saying all cops are crooked and will break the law whenever they want. If we're arguing from this standpoint then there isn't really much discussion to be had.


The Court's reasoning is not restricted to stopping someone on the street. The Court's reasoning can be applied to any situation where an illegal detainment, search, or seizure for anyone with an outstanding warrant (even something as simple as a traffic violation) that leads to evidence of a third, unrelated crime that previously would have been inadmissible.

You are literally comparing stopping someone walking down the street and asking them questions to the police actually breaking into your house and illegally searching through your belongings.

And you have the audacity to say I have a "serious inability to apply abstract concepts to novel situations."

I honestly have no words. I really do think you just went off the deep end here, time4fun.

[Tgo01]

Here is a situation. SWAT kicks in the wrong door (my door). They find my bong and weed. Should I be charged?

That's a good question. I don't think this SCOTUS case deals with that though.

[Gelston]

That's a good question. I don't think this SCOTUS case deals with that though.

What if they discover he has a warrant after they kicked in the door, even though it was the wrong house?

[time4fun]

That may be, but then we're just saying all cops are crooked and will break the law whenever they want. If we're arguing from this standpoint then there isn't really much discussion to be had.



You are literally comparing stopping someone walking down the street and asking them questions to the police actually breaking into your house and illegally searching through your belongings.

And you have the audacity to say I have a "serious inability to apply abstract concepts to novel situations."

I honestly have no words. I really do think you just went off the deep end here, time4fun.

That's because you don't clearly understand how the law works (nor, apparently, the logic of the decision). The only thing an officer has to demonstrate in this case is that there was a "reasonable" mistake on the officer's part in their interpretation of the law. So they can say that they thought for sure that playing loud music was grounds for them to enter a home, and boom- everything from that point on is totally gravy. Or, if they are in AZ that they thought the law allowed them to enter someone's home for looking so dark that they reasonably suspected they could be illegal immigrants. Congrats AZ Police- you can enter ANY non-white person's home and claim you made a reasonable mistake enforcing an ambiguous law.

It also means that ignorance of the law is not a defense for citizens, but it IS a defense for law enforcement.

[Tgo01]

What if they discover he has a warrant after they kicked in the door, even though it was the wrong house?

Again, good question. The SCOTUS decision doesn't seem to apply here because the drugs were found after the search warrant was discovered and after he had been arrested.

For this to be an apt analogy the police would have had to bust down the wrong door, decided to ask this guy some questions, found out his name, called it in, found out he had an arrest warrant, arrested him, and found drugs on his person.

I suppose...I dunno, I suppose in such an unlikely scenario it would fall under this SCOTUS decision. Although the courts usually provide a lot more protection when it comes to someone's home as opposed to someone just walking outside.

I would imagine the courts would rule differently in such a scenario. I honestly don't know.

[drauz]

That may be, but then we're just saying all cops are crooked and will break the law whenever they want. If we're arguing from this standpoint then there isn't really much discussion to be had.

When dealing with someone who is able to take away your freedom it is always best to assume the worst and hope for the best. They don't wear signs saying "I am a crooked cop". I have met some wonderful police officers and I have met some shady police officers. It is just safer for me to assume I am dealing with a shady cop.

[Tgo01]

The only thing an officer has to demonstrate in this case is that there was a "reasonable" mistake on the officer's part in their interpretation of the law.

What are you talking about? This literally has nothing to do with what we are discussing.



So they can say that they thought for sure that playing loud music was grounds for them to enter a home, and boom- everything from that point on is totally gravy.

This is complete and utter bullshit. The SCOTUS has said no such thing.


Or, if they are in AZ that they thought the law allowed them to enter someone's home for looking so dark that they reasonably suspected they could be illegal immigrants. Congrats AZ Police- you can enter ANY non-white person's home and claim you made a reasonable mistake enforcing an ambiguous law.

...


It also means that ignorance of the law is not a defense for citizens, but it IS a defense for law enforcement.

Again, what are you talking about?

[drauz]

That's because you don't clearly understand how the law works (nor, apparently, the logic of the decision). The only thing an officer has to demonstrate in this case is that there was a "reasonable" mistake on the officer's part in their interpretation of the law. So they can say that they thought for sure that playing loud music was grounds for them to enter a home, and boom- everything from that point on is totally gravy. Or, if they are in AZ that they thought the law allowed them to enter someone's home for looking so dark that they reasonably suspected they could be illegal immigrants. Congrats AZ Police- you can enter ANY non-white person's home and claim you made a reasonable mistake enforcing an ambiguous law.

It also means that ignorance of the law is not a defense for citizens, but it IS a defense for law enforcement.

I think you might be conflating different cases maybe?

[drauz]

What are you talking about? This literally has nothing to do with what we are discussing.




This is complete and utter bullshit. The SCOTUS has said no such thing.



...



Again, what are you talking about?

I think she is talking about the tail light one in NC? and conflating it with this one.

[Tgo01]

When dealing with someone who is able to take away your freedom it is always best to assume the worst and hope for the best. They don't wear signs saying "I am a crooked cop". I have met some wonderful police officers and I have met some shady police officers. It is just safer for me to assume I am dealing with a shady cop.

If an officer is going to purposefully disregard the law then it really doesn't matter what SCOTUS says.

[Gelston]

If an officer is going to purposefully disregard the law then it really doesn't matter what SCOTUS says.

Well, it does, because before the stuff he did would have been tossed out. Now he'll actually have the full weight of the law behind him.

[Tgo01]

Well, it does, because before the stuff he did would have been tossed out. Now he'll actually have the full weight of the law behind him.

Yeah but this is a scenario that had never reached the SCOTUS before.

I'm talking about an officer knowingly breaks established laws. Like if this decision had gone the other way yet cops decided to still do shit like this but just lie about it, then this whole discussion is moot if that's the argument we are having.

[drauz]

Yeah but this is a scenario that had never reached the SCOTUS before.

I'm talking about an officer knowingly breaks established laws. Like if this decision had gone the other way yet cops decided to still do shit like this but just lie about it, then this whole discussion is moot if that's the argument we are having.

I think this gives incentives for them to conduct illegal stops, knowing that they might be able to get something out of it still. Where before the best they would get out of it was getting <insert illegal item> off the street.

[Tgo01]

I think this gives incentives for them to conduct illegal stops, knowing that they might be able to get something out of it still. Where before the best they would get out of it was getting <insert illegal item> off the street.

And as the SCOTUS notes in their decision if officers go around conducting illegal stops all of the time then they open themselves up to civil lawsuits.

[drauz]

And as the SCOTUS notes in their decision if officers go around conducting illegal stops all of the time then they open themselves up to civil lawsuits.

The problem is most of the populous don't know their rights and most of the time a civil lawsuit isn't filed for an illegal stop. If you think that civil lawsuits stop police from behaving badly then we just fundamentally disagree.

[Tgo01]

The problem is most of the populous don't know their rights and most of the time a civil lawsuit isn't filed for an illegal stop.

You're right, most people don't know their rights, but that's hardly the fault of officers.


If you think that civil lawsuits stop police from behaving badly then we just fundamentally disagree.

I'm pretty sure it does. It might not eliminate bad behavior altogether but I'm sure it has some effect.

Just like lawsuits don't eliminate all malpractice but I'm sure it has an effect on it.

[drauz]

You're right, most people don't know their rights, but that's hardly the fault of officers.

If they know that fact and use that to their advantage then yes it is. These are people we are granting extraordinary powers. They aren't supposed to be above the law, they are supposed to be better than it. Look at the videos of when officers are caught doing something wrong. You really think each of these offenses is their first time? Its a numbers game, you may be eventually caught, but you may not. Even if you do, unless there is direct evidence against you (video, audio), you will keep your job since your word is worth more than theirs. There might be a civil lawsuit but nothing changes for you. You still will go out on patrol. Thats why finding an officer who will arrest or even testify against another officer is like finding a unicorn, bigfoot, and the loch ness having a tea party hosted by a dragon. In the last idk 30-40 years it has slowly changed from "Serve and Protect" to "Harass and collect".

[Gelston]

If they know that fact and use that to their advantage then yes it is. These are people we are granting extraordinary powers. They aren't supposed to be above the law, they are supposed to be better than it. Look at the videos of when officers are caught doing something wrong. You really think each of these offenses is their first time? Its a numbers game, you may be eventually caught, but you may not. Even if you do, unless there is direct evidence against you (video, audio), you will keep your job since your word is worth more than theirs. There might be a civil lawsuit but nothing changes for you. You still will go out on patrol. Thats why finding an officer who will arrest or even testify against another officer is like finding a unicorn, bigfoot, and the loch ness having a tea party hosted by a dragon. In the last idk 30-40 years it has slowly changed from "Serve and Protect" to "Harass and collect".

Hey pal, we just had a cop arrested here. He was also pawning police department weapons.

[Tgo01]

If they know that fact and use that to their advantage then yes it is.

It really shouldn't be an officer's job to hold everyone's hands and inform them of all of their rights.

[Gelston]

It really shouldn't be an officer's job to hold everyone's hands and inform them of all of their rights.

Why not? SERVE and protect right? Perhaps they need to expand the wordings in the Miranda rights, which informs people of their rights.

[Tgo01]

Why not? SERVE and protect right? Perhaps they need to expand the wordings in the Miranda rights, which informs people of their rights.

Cause.

[drauz]

It really shouldn't be an officer's job to hold everyone's hands and inform them of all of their rights.

It shouldn't be an officer's job to abuse that either.

[Candor]

https://www.youtube.com/qolk_rDA9xU

[Wrathbringer]

If an officer is going to purposefully disregard the law then it really doesn't matter what SCOTUS says.

Stop saying scotus, please. Thanks.

[Androidpk]

It really shouldn't be an officer's job to hold everyone's hands and inform them of all of their rights.

Police are public servants. They serve the public.

[Taernath]

In the last idk 30-40 years it has slowly changed from "Serve and Protect" to "Harass and collect".

The War on Drugs and militarization of police forces has caused an 'us vs. them' mentality.

[Androidpk]

The War on Drugs and militarization of police forces has caused an 'us vs. them' mentality.


That among other things. Public faith needs a big boost.

[RichardCranium]

How do you not understand that without the stop, none of this happens?

To be fair, without the guy skipping court for a parking ticket, visiting a known drug dealer and buying drugs none of this happens either.

[Warriorbird]

The War on Drugs and militarization of police forces has caused an 'us vs. them' mentality.

That was always the goal.

[Androidpk]

That was always the goal.

looooooooooooool

[Taernath]

That was always the goal.

How do you figure?

[Tgo01]

Stop saying scotus, please. Thanks.

SCROTUM.


Police are public servants. They serve the public.

They serve the public by enforcing laws. Without enforcing laws then they really aren't doing their jobs.

[Androidpk]

They serve the public by enforcing laws. Without enforcing laws then they really aren't doing their jobs.

You can't break the law to enforce the law.

[Tgo01]

You can't break the law to enforce the law.

You're right. Not informing someone of their rights (except in the specific case where the Miranda rights are required to be read) is not breaking the law.

[Warriorbird]

How do you figure?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

[Latrinsorm]

I was not referring to this gun case, frankly I did not even know that one was before the court.

I am talking about the simple fact that either states have the right to regulate something in their borders or they do not. The hypocrisy of saying oh, one thing can be regulated but not the other is ridiculous. You can tell yourself it is otherwise but that does not make it so. The simple fact is that the left has no issue with states that regulate gun sales but they do with states that regulate abortions, both are protected rights, so why is there any difference? The difference is that they like abortions and they do not like guns, plain and simple. I personally abhor abortions, but it is the law, and I am pro death penalty so it would seem idiotic to me to be pro death penalty and pro life, and I know, I know, innocent life and all that, I get it, but pick one side and stand on it. Besides, I am not of the opinion that the Government should be able to tell ANYONE what they can and cannot do with their own body, unless of course you join the military and then they own you.

And it is not just going to a doctor, they had to have a higher level of care, the abortion clinic has a Doc, what good does leaving there and going to your podunk town Doc do, he cannot do anything the clinic Doc could not. I will say it again, it was a requirement for a HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE.Not all "somethings" are the same as far as the Constitution is concerned. Not even all rights are the same. We can say freedom of speech, freedom of religion, but that's not what the Constitution says. It has specific wordings that mean specific things.
And as the SCOTUS notes in their decision if officers go around conducting illegal stops all of the time then they open themselves up to civil lawsuits.Are you willing to go to jail for two years while such a civil lawsuit is processed? And do you expect that jury to give you, a convicted criminal, the benefit of the doubt over a police officer?

[Gelston]

Not all "somethings" are the same as far as the Constitution is concerned. Not even all rights are the same. We can say freedom of speech, freedom of religion, but that's not what the Constitution says. It has specific wordings that mean specific things.Are you willing to go to jail for two years while such a civil lawsuit is processed? And do you expect that jury to give you, a convicted criminal, the benefit of the doubt over a police officer?

Shut up, Latrin.

[kutter]

I have not had a chance to read all of the comments, only got to page 10 and have to go to work, but I am having some issues here with two things: 1. The stop, as a former LEO, I never needed probable cause to initiate a conversation with someone, I needed reasonable suspicion, a much lower threshold; now if said subject declined to provide me with a name and ID, then I would either have to find a legitimate reason to detain them or let them go; however if I wanted to search their person then I would need probable cause to do so, a much higher threshold which was met in this case by the discovery of the arrest warrant.

I confess I have not drilled down into this ruling but seems to me, if you are a cop and you see someone make a brief stop at a suspected drug house then asking who they are what they are doing seems pretty reasonable to me. Now, what happens after that is subject to a number of variables, did this guy volunteer his info, if so this is all a moot point as he agreed to the LEO's request. I am going to try to read more about it at work tonight.

[Tgo01]

Are you willing to go to jail for two years while such a civil lawsuit is processed?

I...guess? Why does it matter if I'm in jail or not as to whether or not I'll proceed with a civil lawsuit?


And do you expect that jury to give you, a convicted criminal, the benefit of the doubt over a police officer?

As long as my lawyer manages to stack the jury with BLM activists then yeah. Shit, I'd probably get so rich from the lawsuit I could just buy the prison I'm at and set myself free.

[Latrinsorm]

I...guess? Why does it matter if I'm in jail or not as to whether or not I'll proceed with a civil lawsuit?Not proceed, but to risk the situation in the first place. As it was you couldn't be convicted on anything following from an illegal stop. Now we have to ask if a civil lawsuit is sufficient recompense, and to do that we have to understand what is suffered.
As long as my lawyer manages to stack the jury with BLM activists then yeah. Shit, I'd probably get so rich from the lawsuit I could just buy the prison I'm at and set myself free.I see.

[Tgo01]

As it was you couldn't be convicted on anything following from an illegal stop.

This is not true as I have already demonstrated in this thread. If a cop stops you illegally but he then witnesses you commit a crime he can arrest you and you can be charged with a crime, right?

Likewise the cop "witnessed" the arrest warrant after the illegal stop. Nothing was really changed in this regard, the rules were just clarified.

[Warriorbird]

I don't get why Tgo01 and Latrinsorm are arguing. They're both authoritarians.

[Tgo01]

I don't get why Tgo01 and Latrinsorm are arguing. They're both authoritarians.

Well obviously one of us is more authoritarian than the other.

[drauz]

Well obviously one of us is more authoritarian than the other.

Its you, right?

[Tgo01]

Its you, right?

http://filmcrithulk.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/respect-my-authority.jpg

[GS4Pirate]

The benefit of the doubt over a police officer?

Latrin, you can be so cute sometimes.

If a cop wants to pull you over, you're getting pulled over and there ain't shit you're doing about it. That's the law and it always has been.

Here is some advice (throw away your law book, it's useless)

1. Kiss ass.

2. Your vocabulary is minimized to: I have no idea, yes sir, no mam and thank you sir.

3. Deny the existence of contraband only once, if they ask again you are busted and you will save yourself further charges by admitting to possession.

4. Treat the officer/s like a buddy you are having a beer with at the bar. (This is fucking critical)

Trust me, this is solid advice. Over my 30+ years of smoking weed I have had at least a quarter pound of grass confiscated, I have never received a possession charge and never used a lawyer. Just recently I had a judge in Idaho drop a possession charge, showed him my medical records and he was like butter. Hell he was even concerned about me having access to a legal source.

[RichardCranium]

Latrin, you can be so cute sometimes.

If a cop wants to pull you over, you're getting pulled over and there ain't shit you're doing about it. That's the law and it always has been.

You done did it now.

[drauz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI

[Latrinsorm]

This is not true as I have already demonstrated in this thread. If a cop stops you illegally but he then witnesses you commit a crime he can arrest you and you can be charged with a crime, right? Likewise the cop "witnessed" the arrest warrant after the illegal stop. Nothing was really changed in this regard, the rules were just clarified.If you have to put it in quotes, is it really the same thing?
I don't get why Tgo01 and Latrinsorm are arguing. They're both authoritarians.He's an aufauxritarian at best. /flounce

[Tgo01]

If you have to put it in quotes, is it really the same thing?

"Yes."