I haven’t had time to read the whole decision but a friend just e-mailed me that on Wednesday the US Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized in an improper arrest does not have to be thrown out IF the error which lead to the arrest (and subsequent finding of evidence and subsequent charges) was due to an isolated case of negligence.

Man was driving - in Alabama, Police ran his name which came up as having a warrant, he was arrested (on the warrant), searched his car, found evidence of drugs, found that the warrant had been withdrawn. Evidence is admissible because the error was not routine, was an isolated incident.

How about that?

Just curious, but was the search consensual?

I wonder what the original warrant was for and by whom was it issued, and why it was withdrawn...
Also, in Alabama, was he charged with possession of drugs or paraphernalia?
The traffic stop was justified because the warrant may have seemed valid at that time. The evidence found in his possession doesn't "go away" because the warrant isn't still in effect.
I agree. An isolated incident, even in Alabama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Just curious, but was the search consensual?

---

From what I can read - and I don't have the whole decision - it does not appear so. It looks like he got stopped (for whatever reason), showed an outstanding warrant, searched the car. I see nothing about his consent - my guess would be no consent or it wouldn't have gone to appeal.

With his consent I don't know he'd have anything to complain about -

But that's only from what I have so far.

That would be the Herring V Unites States ruling . It is about the exlusionary rule. The Supreme Court found that because officers legitimately believed a warrant existed for Herring's arrest, their actions were justified and not subject to the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. This is called the "good faith" doctrine, wherein police actions are upheld if officers believed they were acting legally .

I think it was a good call .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Just curious, but was the search consensual?

---

Hello George:

No, the search was NOT consensual... If it was, then the evidence WOULD be admissible, and couldn't be challenged. In this case, it was.

In MY view, under this and recent administrations, we, as citizens of this great country, are losing more and more of our Constitutional rights every day...

In the above decision, it all started with the notion that even though the police DON'T have a search warrant, the evidence they found ought to be allowed in because the police are the GOOD guys. They really don't have to be held to a higher standard than does your local garbage collector... If they make a mistake and screw somebody around, then that's the price we have to pay to live in a free society...

Of course, that's BACKWARDS... In truth of fact, the price to pay from living in a FREE society, is when some guilty people go free because the COPS DIDN'T do their job. Maybe if we FORCED the COPS to adhere to the Constitution, we'd be better off.

Nahhh. Let's just lock the PEOPLE up, instead...

You DO know, that we are the worlds LEADING jailor... Although we only have 5% of the worlds people, we have 25% of the worlds prisoners...

Are we really that bad?

excon

I heard this story on NPR a few days ago. Apparently this guy and the officer have had problems in the past. The guys car was impounded and when he went to go get it the officer saw him and asked someone to see if he had any warrants. The guy did not have any warrants in that county but the officer then asked to check if he had warrants in another county and he did.

So then officer went and searched him. A few minutes later after they found the drugs and weapon they realized that the warrant was withdrawn. But since the officer thought the warrant was not withdrawn they are letting the evidence be used.

You can listen to the story here. High Court Says Evidence Valid Despite Error : NPR

For what it's worth: if you wish to opine about a legal opinion, then post it. NPR and most other news sources aren't much more than clutter.

George I think it is BullSh*t that an officer can search for warrants just because he/she has a problem with a person. If you ask me that is an abuse of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

George I think it is BullSh*t that an officer can search for warrants just because he/she has a problem with a person. If you ask me that is an abuse of power.

---

Can you prove that? If not, why bring it up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George_1950

Can you prove that? If not, why bring it up?

---

YUP!
No. 07-513: Herring v. United States - Opposition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitvenom

George I think it is BullSh*t that an officer can search for warrants just because he/she has a problem with a person. If you ask me that is an abuse of power.

---

Any time the Police have probable cause they can search for Warrants. This case was about incorrect information which led to a search which lead to an arrest, not about searching for a warrant.

In my area the Police search for warrants if you cross their line of vision. They run a warrant check at auto accidents.

I can see running a search when you actually pull someone over or if you have been in an accident. But he wasn't in an auto accident nor was he in a car that was pulled over. He was retrieving items from an impounded car. The cop saw him and decided to run a search. When they finally found something he went chasing after the guy who already left the impound lot.

I don't know about you but I am not OK with that. The officer had no probable cause to run a search except he had a problem with this man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

How about that?

---

Hello again, Judy:

With a lamentable 5-to-4 ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court carved a new exception to the nearly century-old exclusionary rule, which forbids prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police as the result of an improper search. The result was a meaningful dilution of Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections and one more instance of the court’s conservative majority upsetting precedent without admitting that it is doing so.

In MY view, the IDEA behind the Fourth Amendment was that people were allowed to freely go about their business unfettered by the police UNLESS the police had probable cause to interfere.

Now, I agree, that my view is old fashioned. Nobody thinks the cops should just be observers anymore. And, nobody thinks people should be able to walk around unfettered.

However, I just happen to think that old fashioned freedom is NEVER old fashioned.

excon

You forgot that pesky phrase "... against unreasonable searches and seizures" that is found in the 4th.

Bottom line in this case is that
The cop didn't knowingly violate the law, the perp did.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the exclusionary rule was intended to deter the police from conducting illegal searches of homes and cars... not intended to give criminals a free pass if officers search the wrong house or car because of a computer error at police headquarters. Maybe the computer was the bad guy ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Judy:

With a lamentable 5-to-4 ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court carved a new exception to the nearly century-old exclusionary rule, which forbids prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police as the result of an improper search. The result was a meaningful dilution of Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections and one more instance of the court’s conservative majority upsetting precedent without admitting that it is doing so.

In MY view, the IDEA behind the Fourth Amendment was that people were allowed to freely go about their business unfettered by the police UNLESS the police had probable cause to interfere.

Now, I agree, that my view is old fashioned. Nobody thinks the cops should just be observers anymore. And, nobody thinks people should be able to walk around unfettered.

However, I just happen to think that old fashioned freedom is NEVER old fashioned.

excon

---

But that's the question - what constitutes probable cause? A prior conviction? Hanging around known criminals?

I think this decision opens the door for abuse, no question about it. I have found a percentage of info on Police computers is incorrect, no question about that. Now is somebody going to deliberately enter incorrect info to enable searches? I don't know.

I was answering the question whether in this case there was probable cause to search and I believe there was. I'm not saying that the evidence was admissible. I question the "mistake" on the computer. There is a means to every end.

You and I both know that evidence is sometimes planted. No question. The Feds hopefully have cleaned up their act but at one time they were notorious.

But I'm not discussing that - I'm discussing this case and whether there was probable cause. I think there was. Obviously I'm pretty much alone in that.