Interesting constitution rights dillema

[Ugfugly]

The article is here


Just got done reading this article and thought this would be a good topic to mull over.

How many times have you seen on TV or movies criminals getting off on "technicalities"? This guy didn't, but was the Supreme Court's ruling correct?

The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.


Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.

Being a strict proponent of the constitution I am SO torn on this one.

 

[Heretic]

Not an expert...but i think you need a warrant. If I recall, if you have a waarant for guns, and you stumble across drugs...then thats one thing.

I think that if theres no warrant at all then the evidence "doesnt exist" so to speak.

Keep in mind, I may just have that info from watching the same tv shows youre talking about...

 

[Heretic]

Not an expert...but i think you need a warrant. If I recall, if you have a waarant for guns, and you stumble across drugs...then thats one thing.

I think that if theres no warrant at all then the evidence "doesnt exist" so to speak.

Keep in mind, I may just have that info from watching the same tv shows youre talking about...

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You don't need a warrant to search someone's person, that may be the argument they used to get him off. The other argument is "inevitable discovery", meaning that if they can prove what was found would've or could've been found without the aid of a warrant (for example, if you chase a guy into his house and then while looking for him in his house find a bag of weed in the cupboard -- inevitable discovery). Although you've given us few facts to go on. If it moves though, like a car or a person, no warrant is needed.

 

[michephantom]

Sidenote here: does this mean all the evidence that Batman finds is inadmissable in court?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Sidenote here: does this mean all the evidence that Batman finds is inadmissable in court?

Yes, incredibly so.

 

[Heretic]

Yes, incredibly so.

Batman isnt even a police officer...so I suppose we should just really overlook the legalities when watching his films...otherwise...why in the heck would his arrests mean a darn thing to the cops?

I think itd be funny if it turned out batmans been planting evidence all these years.

 

[Ugfugly]

That's why Batman's arrests go to Arkham and not in real prison, because they weren't arrested by law officers.

Ultimate Spider-man kind of deals with this when Spider-man asks how the Shocker was back out again and Foggy Nelson explained it to him.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Sidenote here: does this mean all the evidence that Batman finds is inadmissable in court?

Which isn't to say that GCPD doesn't absolutely lie about the discovery of said evidence and claim that they found it.

Back on topic.

Wouldn't this be considered illegal stop and search? in reality they stopped and searched someone without any reason or cause (despite what they knew because that information wasn't correct).

I say the evidence and the arrest should be thrown out completely. They had no actual grounds for the arrest until after it had been made.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't pretend to know the nuances of American law, but the guy was caught red handed with drugs. It shouldn't matter if he shouldn't of been stopped and searched. The fact is he broke a law and should face punishment for it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I don't pretend to know the nuances of American law, but the guy was caught red handed with drugs. It shouldn't matter if he shouldn't of been stopped and searched. The fact is he broke a law and should face punishment for it.

The problem with that is that cops could start stopping people at random with no actual cause just to search them for drugs. That infringes upon our liberties.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Hmmm yea I guess so. But if I was walking along and a cop searched me and he found my weed the fact is, he found some weed. It wouldn't matter that he was allowed to stop me.

Or what if it was something more serious than drugs? If I was walking along and a cop searched me and found a gun or knife, would it be better that i got let off just because he wasn't allowed to stop me? I don't think so.

 

[Hotwire]

Hmmm yea I guess so. But if I was walking along and a cop searched me and he found my weed the fact is, he found some weed. It wouldn't matter that he was allowed to stop me.

Or what if it was something more serious than drugs? If I was walking along and a cop searched me and found a gun or knife, would it be better that i got let off just because he wasn't allowed to stop me? I don't think so.

The point is, if you're just walking along, minding your own business, not doing anything suspicious, the cop has no right to search you. And what you are suggesting is that the ends justify the means, and that is not how our justice system works.

In the caes of this guy, I would imagine, that since the reason for his arresst and subsequent search were invalid, then the evidence found would be inadmissable since the cops would not have found it otherwise.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Hmmm yea I guess so. But if I was walking along and a cop searched me and he found my weed the fact is, he found some weed. It wouldn't matter that he was allowed to stop me.

Or what if it was something more serious than drugs? If I was walking along and a cop searched me and found a gun or knife, would it be better that i got let off just because he wasn't allowed to stop me? I don't think so.

You're thinking about it from a guilty man's position. We are innocent until proven guilty. What you're talking about is being guilty until proven innocent and that's no way to live. Just ask V.

The point is, if you're just walking along, minding your own business, not doing anything suspicious, the cop has no right to search you. And what you are suggesting is that the ends justify the means, and that is not how our justice system works.

In the caes of this guy, I would imagine, that since the reason for his arresst and subsequent search were invalid, then the evidence found would be inadmissable since the cops would not have found it otherwise.

Right on.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes but if i am caught red handed with a strap or a blade, then I don't think i should be let off just because the cop wasn't supposed to search me.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Actually, I'll rephrase that.

If someone was walking around my area, and they was stopped and searched unfairly, but the cop found a gun on them I wouldn't give a toss that he shouldn't of been searched. I would just be happy that a man walking around my area with a lethal weapon has been nicked.

 

[Eggyman]

That's why Batman's arrests go to Arkham and not in real prison, because they weren't arrested by law officers.

Nope. The people that go to Arkham go there because they are criminally insane, not because when Batman 'arrests' someone they have to put them somewhere else because it hasn't been done by an official police officer. It's an asylum. For the insane.

They are insane.

 

[Hotwire]

Ok, Ace, at what point do we draw the line? If you're going to allow a cop to search you just because he feels like it, then when do we not allow a cop to search? With what you are suggesting, then cops should be allowed to enter anyone's home, ransack it, and if they find anything, arrest the person. But what if they don't find anything? Or better yet, is there a limit on who they can search? You are suggesting giving the police a level of power found in a dictatorship.
Now, while I feel that criminals deserve to be locked up, giving law enforcement that level of power is not justice.

 

[Hotwire]

Nope. The people that go to Arkham go there because they are criminally insane, not because when Batman 'arrests' someone they have to put them somewhere else because it hasn't been done by an official police officer. It's an asylum. For the insane.

They are insane.

Batman doesn't really arrest anyone, he just beats their ass and leaves them for cops to find. The fact that a bunch of incriminating evidence just happens to be laying next to them is, well, pure coincidence.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ok, Ace, at what point do we draw the line? If you're going to allow a cop to search you just because he feels like it, then when do we not allow a cop to search? With what you are suggesting, then cops should be allowed to enter anyone's home, ransack it, and if they find anything, arrest the person. But what if they don't find anything? Or better yet, is there a limit on who they can search? You are suggesting giving the police a level of power found in a dictatorship.
Now, while I feel that criminals deserve to be locked up, giving law enforcement that level of power is not justice.

Well no, that isn't what I want. I've had many, many run ins with the law. Countless if i'm honest. I remember one time I was visibly stoned, the policeman searched me and found nothing. He then threatened to take me to the police station and perform a strip search anyway. I told him to piss off, that I know my rights and he can't do that. A couple years later the same policeman got done for being a peedo. So i'm obviously glad i stood my ground.

But what i am saying, is that if mistakes like the one mentioned in this article occur, but the police still find the person in question guilty of something (possesion) then they should still be arrested. They shouldn't just throw the case out because they wouldn't of found the offending item (drugs or weapon). The fact is the guy got caught red handed, whether he was allowed to be searched is irrelevant.

 

[Eggyman]

Batman doesn't really arrest anyone, he just beats their ass and leaves them for cops to find. The fact that a bunch of incriminating evidence just happens to be laying next to them is, well, pure coincidence.

I understand this - notice how I stressed arrest . My point was about why they go to Arkham rather than a regular prison.

 

[November Rain]

having paperwork stand in the way of crime is ******ed

saying this, with the current system all police officers should really be crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

no one should be getting off crimes on any sort of technicality.

 

[Hotwire]

Well no, that isn't what I want. I've had many, many run ins with the law. Countless if i'm honest. I remember one time I was visibly stoned, the policeman searched me and found nothing. He then threatened to take me to the police station and perform a strip search anyway. I told him to piss off, that I know my rights and he can't do that. A couple years later the same policeman got done for being a peedo. So i'm obviously glad i stood my ground.

Ok, so you don't really want what you are fine with

But what i am saying, is that if mistakes like the one mentioned in this article occur, but the police still find the person in question guilty of something (possesion) then they should still be arrested. They shouldn't just throw the case out because they wouldn't of found the offending item (drugs or weapon). The fact is the guy got caught red handed, whether he was allowed to be searched is irrelevant.

Even with this, the cop could still search anyone they wanted and then just say it was a mistake.

 

[Hotwire]

having paperwork stand in the way of crime is ******ed

saying this, with the current system all police officers should really be crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

no one should be getting off crimes on any sort of technicality.

Having the paperwork, with it's "t's" crossed and it "i's" dotted helps prevent throwing the wrong guy in jail. While it is sad that there are some criminals who get off on technicallities, the blame for this falls on the justice system for either gettting lazy, or just plain not doing the job right.

 

[Ring Deacon]

If a cop pulls you over it is normally because he has probable cause to do so ( speeding, ignoring traffic signals, driving eradiclly, busted head light / tail light. ) When he does so, yes he needs a warrent to search your car. That is unless yet again he has cause to search your car, or you give permision. So anything he finds even with out a warrent ( as long as you gave him cause or permission to search ) can and will be used against you.