Joined
·
9,500 Posts
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/06/fourth-amendment-body-blows.html
I'm with the lefties on the Supreme Court on this one
I'm with the lefties on the Supreme Court on this one
Me too. It doesn't mean their normal leftist leanings don't allow them to get one right now and then.http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/06/fourth-amendment-body-blows.html
I'm with the lefties on the Supreme Court on this one
What does the opinion say? The link does not say, and I do not have time right now to read the opinion.http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2016/06/fourth-amendment-body-blows.html
I'm with the lefties on the Supreme Court on this one
Summary version:Malum Prohibitum said:What does the opinion say? The link does not say, and I do not have time right now to read the opinion.
Holding: When there was no flagrant police misconduct and a police officer discovered a valid, pre-existing, and untainted warrant for an individual’s arrest, evidence seized pursuant to that arrest is admissible even when the police officer’s stop of the individual was unconstitutional, because the discovery of the warrant attenuated the connection between the stop and the evidence.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 20, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
I have been caught up in a roadblock that stopped all motorcycles an waved all cars through... even some with noticable violations... expired tag, blown taillights...If there is a roadblock and police are checking all vehicles, how do they handle bicyclists? Are they waved through or do they have to show ID as well?
That is common in the mountains. A very large percent of riders don't have a license.I have been caught up in a roadblock that stopped all motorcycles an waved all cars through... even some with noticable violations... expired tag, blown taillights...
A cop was surveilling a drug house. He later contacted a person who came from the drug house. The wording used in the decision was "detained". To me, that means stopped via a show of authority and the person wasn't free to leave.What does the opinion say? The link does not say, and I do not have time right now to read the opinion.
:-kOfficer Fackrell observed Strieff exit the house and walk toward a nearby convenience store. In the store's parking lot, Officer Fackrell detained Strieff, identified himself, and asked Strieff what he was doing at the residence.
As part of the stop, Officer Fackrell requested Strieff's identification, and Strieff produced his Utah identification card.
Sufficient attenuation isn't the issue. The warrant could have been discovered by checking random names in a phone book. The issue is whether unlawful use of force (RAS'less detainment) by police is okay.At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor conceded that Officer Fackrell lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop but argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because the existence of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the discovery of the contraband.
I'd think tossing the meth, kit and additional charges, and delivering him to traffic court under the warrant would be about right.If applying the Exclusionary Rule is not appropriate because the warrant stands on it's own, then what is an appropriate remedy for abuse of "detainment powers"?
They call it an illegal stop, (and as we all know, conducting illegal stops is not an official duty), and yet...The court found that the short time between the illegal stop and the search weighed in favor of suppressing the evidence, but that two countervailing considerations made it admissible.
...they characterize conducting the illegal stop as being part of a legitimate investigation.Second, the court stressed the absence of flagrant misconduct by Officer Fackrell, who was conducting a legitimate investigation of a suspected drug house.
Illegal RAS'less detainments sounds pretty flagrant to me. Doing them in order to perform warrant checks sounds pretty purposeful.The third factor of the attenuation doctrine reflects that rationale by favoring exclusion only when the police misconduct is most in need of deterrence-that is, when it is purposeful or flagrant.
Well, then that leaves incompetence under color of law. Dismissively saying "Officer Fackrell was at most negligent" sounds as though they're saying negligent incompetence under color of law is fine.But these errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff 's Fourth Amendment rights.
And he acted with that purpose...Officer Fackrell's stated purpose was to "find out what was going on [in] the house."
But somehow it didn't rise to a purposeful act.But these errors in judgment hardly rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff 's Fourth Amendment rights.
How can his conduct while executing an illegal stop be lawful?While Officer Fackrell's decision to initiate the stop was mistaken, his conduct thereafter was lawful.
It is not wholly independent of the illegal stop because the critical circumstance did not intervene without the illegal stop.The outstanding arrest warrant for Strieff 's arrest is a critical intervening circumstance that is wholly independent of the illegal stop.
Okay.But Officer Fackrell sought information from Strieff to find out what was happening inside a house whose occupants were legitimately suspected of dealing drugs.
Isn't that what "seeking information" is?This was not a suspicionless fishing expedition "in the hope that something would turn up."