4th Amendment Eviscerated by SCOTUS

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That does not mean that it gives an implicit permission to violate constitutional rights, only that the victim is a douchebag.[/quote]

He waived his right, which he has the right to do. His rights weren’t violated because he was a willing participant of the search. He could have withdrawn consent at any point and it would have stopped.[/quote]

That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Correct, except a cop does not need probable cause to ask to search your car/property/person.
[/quote]

He didn’t “ask” at first he ordered the car to the side of the road and it was a detention. There’s a big difference. [/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. To clarify, the cop had no legitimate reason to stop the vehicle in the first place so they cannot proceed with any charges resulting from this illegitimate stopping. However, a cop can “ask” to search you for no reason and if you say yes you’re screwed. But not in this particular case as the search followed on from an illegitimate stop. Agree?

22

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That does not mean that it gives an implicit permission to violate constitutional rights, only that the victim is a douchebag.[/quote]

He waived his right, which he has the right to do. His rights weren’t violated because he was a willing participant of the search. He could have withdrawn consent at any point and it would have stopped.[/quote]

That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Correct, except a cop does not need probable cause to ask to search your car/property/person.
[/quote]

He didn’t “ask” at first he ordered the car to the side of the road and it was a detention. There’s a big difference. [/quote]

I think you misunderstand me. To clarify, the cop had no legitimate reason to stop the vehicle in the first place so they cannot proceed with any charges resulting from this illegitimate stopping. However, a cop can “ask” to search you for no reason and if you say yes you’re screwed. But not in this particular case as the search followed on from an illegitimate stop. Agree?[/quote]

Yes. I agree with all of this. The consent to search was obtained as “tainted fruit” from the poisonous tree as a result of the bad initial detention. But, as a general matter, cops can ask to search shit anytime they want as long as they aren’t detaining you and–at least in theory–you have the right to say no.

23

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.
[/quote]

a.) The officer obviously did not have probable cause to stop the car.
b.) The officer DID NOT need probable cause to ask for permission to search the car.

If you consent to a search(or field sobriety testing, etc.), you have only yourself to blame.

Should the crack or cocaine or whatever in this case be considered fruit of the poisonous tree? Sure. But the officer probably DID have a lawful reason to stop the driver even without the light. You can lawfully be stopped for going 1 mph over or under the speed limit, or for driving the speed limit when the roads are wet.

24

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]The-German wrote:
Nah I think the moral is the story is don’t drive around with illegal shit in your car. The officer doesn’t need a warrant or anything to search you or the vehicle so why would you have that shit in your car? It is as simple as “the driver was acting strange or I smelled something strange.”[/quote]

No, that is incorrect. Although it is smart to not have anything illegal, let alone drive around with something illegal in your car, cops are still required to have probable cause to stop you and yes, they need a warrant. Unless you give them consent, the cop has probable cause there is evidence of a crime in your car (I already have a major issue with this), or you have been arrested and the search is connected to the already made arrest.

Neither probable cause or an arrest applied in this case. The officer had no probable cause to believe any crime was committed, only that a tail light was out. He was fishing. Yes the perp did give his consent, and so that is a problem, but as I said–and as I think jjackkrash has mentioned before–constitutional rights cases almost never involve an ‘angel’ of a suspect or victim. That does not mean that it gives an implicit permission to violate constitutional rights, only that the victim is a douchebag.[/quote]

Yah, that was me. Haha. “This story starts when ‘Our Hero’ the pedophile murder gets pulled over . . .”

25

[quote]NickViar wrote:
But the officer probably DID have a lawful reason to stop the driver even without the light. You can lawfully be stopped for going 1 mph over or under the speed limit, or for driving the speed limit when the roads are wet.[/quote]

But he didn’t list or “articulate” those as reasons, so, no, he didn’t have a lawful reason. The reason he actually gave wasn’t a lawful reason.

26

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.
[/quote]

a.) The officer obviously did not have probable cause to stop the car.
b.) The officer DID NOT need probable cause to ask for permission to search the car.

If you consent to a search(or field sobriety testing, etc.), you have only yourself to blame.

Should the crack or cocaine or whatever in this case be considered fruit of the poisonous tree? Sure. But the officer probably DID have a lawful reason to stop the driver even without the light. You can lawfully be stopped for going 1 mph over or under the speed limit, or for driving the speed limit when the roads are wet.[/quote]

In this particular jurisdiction it’s not an infraction to have one tail light out. The cop had no legitimate grounds to stop the guy so anything following on from that is inadmissible.

But this is a particularly unusual case in my opinion because:

  1. The cop didn’t know the law; got it wrong.

And

  1. Instead of lying and saying he had some other(legitimate) reason for stopping him the cop told the truth and admitted he was stopped for a dead tail light. This is not the way things would normally happen. The cop would normally lie and say something like he was driving erratically or whatever.
27

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?

28

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.
[/quote]

a.) The officer obviously did not have probable cause to stop the car.
b.) The officer DID NOT need probable cause to ask for permission to search the car.

If you consent to a search(or field sobriety testing, etc.), you have only yourself to blame.

Should the crack or cocaine or whatever in this case be considered fruit of the poisonous tree? Sure. But the officer probably DID have a lawful reason to stop the driver even without the light. You can lawfully be stopped for going 1 mph over or under the speed limit, or for driving the speed limit when the roads are wet.[/quote]

In this particular jurisdiction it’s not an infraction to have one tail light out. The cop had no legitimate grounds to stop the guy so anything following on from that is inadmissible.

But this is a particularly unusual case in my opinion because:

  1. The cop didn’t know the law; got it wrong.

And

  1. Instead of lying and saying he had some other(legitimate) reason for stopping him the cop told the truth and admitted he was stopped for a dead tail light. This is not the way things would normally happen. The cop would normally lie and say something like he was driving erratically or whatever.[/quote]

Yes. The Supremes basically stated cops don’t have to make up facts anymore, they can just resort to general incompetence as a justification for the stop.

29

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
But the officer probably DID have a lawful reason to stop the driver even without the light. You can lawfully be stopped for going 1 mph over or under the speed limit, or for driving the speed limit when the roads are wet.[/quote]

But he didn’t list or “articulate” those as reasons, so, no, he didn’t have a lawful reason. The reason he actually gave wasn’t a lawful reason. [/quote]

I said just that, but who cares? Everybody on the road can be legally stopped, for doing nothing wrong. The 4th Amendment is just words on paper, and if you rely solely on words on paper to protect you, you never had any rights.

30

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You seen this one Aragorn?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/[/quote]

This is another one that has been recently changed. Holder just changed it and said it was only valid for specific cases like child porn and something else.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

I know I put a charged title on this thread, but honestly, we’ve already got cops misbehaving on camera, abusing people on camera, and getting away with murder…on camera.

Is it really that far of a stretch to say this is an evisceration? Because they already abuse the system we have, while supposedly being held accountable for knowing the laws. You really trust them to be reasonable after this?

He’s an idiot, yes. Shouldn’t have granted permission to search. But I don’t trust this decision one bit.

[/quote]

I don’t like any of this either and it concerns me very much.

I’m generally sympathetic to LE who have to deal with mostly stupid criminals everyday. It would test any reasonable man’s patience.

I’m also skeptical of LE, as human beings are non-ideal, and putting a large amount of authority in a non-ideal system will generally yield some disagreeable results. There is also the self preservation instinct of the bureacracy that tends to be resistant to even reasonable reforms that could make it perhaps a better system.

[/quote]

I’m generally sympathetic and skeptical also. In my past I worked as a bouncer and then bartender, then head of security, and then business operations manager. I didn’t have to deal with the same volume of shitheads the cops do in gang members or drug runners, but I would like to think there is something to be said for dealing with a critical mass of these types of people in one spot all hopped up.

I definitely have sympathy for the cops who deal with this, as well as being friends with a number of them. That said, I’ve also been victim of abuse by cops, which I’ve written about elsewhere in this forum, despite having no criminal record besides a speeding ticket or two. I am 100% convinced that had the last guy not had anybody watching, he might have tried to beat my ass. He escalated the situation, didn’t even talk to me, didn’t even address me as a person. If another person not wearing a uniform had done that, he’d have been lucky to escape without any broken limbs…but a cop gets away with it because of the uniform. Not acceptable.

Every time I hear something about this I keep going back to the Stanford Experiment. Oh no, you can trust those in charge (Stanford Experiment). You can bet there’s no slippery slope (cough Stanford). If you don’t have anything to hide why are you upset? Etc. etc.

31

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?

[/quote]

Do you see any other way to make sure the law gets enforced, considering qualified immunity from civil suits and the lack of any other remedy? Exclusion doesn’t have to be the only remedy, but I don’t see an alternative one out there that is actually used.

32

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Yes. The Supremes basically stated cops don’t have to make up facts anymore, they can just resort to general incompetence as a justification for the stop. [/quote]

Which is incredibly disturbing to me as–as awful as the situation is in the first place–you at least have a chance to catch the cops for making shit up. When they can just say “oh well despite the fact that it is my job to know the laws in my jurisdiction I just didn’t know” and you can’t do anything…that’s even worse.

33

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?
[/quote]

Yes. Easy answer. Is it the best? no. But one of the tenets of our judicial system is that it is better to let 10 guilty guys go free than to punish one innocent guy through a screw up of the law/authorities/jury.

It doesn’t work out that way, but that is the concept.

34

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Yah, that was me. Haha. “This story starts when ‘Our Hero’ the pedophile murder gets pulled over . . .”
[/quote]

I thought so! I will probably remember this for the rest of my life lol.

35

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?

[/quote]

Do you see any other way to make sure the law gets enforced, considering qualified immunity from civil suits and the lack of any other remedy? Exclusion doesn’t have to be the only remedy, but I don’t see an alternative one out there that is actually used.

[/quote]

I don’t think it should automatically be excluded because of a simple misunderstanding of traffic law, especially when the cop is acting in good faith. A totality of the circumstances test is far more appropriate.

36

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?

[/quote]

Serious question: does knowing your case is going to get tossed if you don’t meticulously follow con-law rules give you more incentive to follow them? If the answer is honestly “no,” then I think we can talk about alternate remedies. If “yes,” then the exclusionary rule is serving its purpose.

37

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?

[/quote]

Do you see any other way to make sure the law gets enforced, considering qualified immunity from civil suits and the lack of any other remedy? Exclusion doesn’t have to be the only remedy, but I don’t see an alternative one out there that is actually used.

[/quote]

I don’t think it should automatically be excluded because of a simple misunderstanding of traffic law, especially when the cop is acting in good faith. A totality of the circumstances test is far more appropriate.

[/quote]

I actually wouldn’t disagree in theory, but it seems so easy to erode rights, that I have come around to automatic exclusion.

38

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Will207 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That’s not what this case is about though. This case is about whether the cop who stopped him a)had the right to stop him and b) had the right to ask to search his car. He had neither. He had neither because the man wasn’t breaking any laws driving (his tail light was NOT out and it wasn’t illegal to drive with only one tail light in the state in any case, which means the cop did not have the right to stop him). The cop also did not have probable cause to ask for the search–but more importantly didn’t have the right to stop him in the first place. If this was only about him giving consent to be searched like a dumbass I would be more inclined to agree with you.

This case is actually about whether the cops can violate your 4th amendment rights by “misunderstanding” the laws they are enforcing. This is absurd to me and dangerous to boot.

[/quote]

Should evidence always be excluded if the stop is unlawful?

[/quote]

Do you see any other way to make sure the law gets enforced, considering qualified immunity from civil suits and the lack of any other remedy? Exclusion doesn’t have to be the only remedy, but I don’t see an alternative one out there that is actually used.

[/quote]

I don’t think it should automatically be excluded because of a simple misunderstanding of traffic law, especially when the cop is acting in good faith. A totality of the circumstances test is far more appropriate.

[/quote]

I actually wouldn’t disagree in theory, but it seems so easy to erode rights, that I have come around to automatic exclusion.
[/quote]

With drug charges and other crimes not against the person, I agree with you.

39

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
In this particular jurisdiction it’s not an infraction to have one tail light out. The cop had no legitimate grounds to stop the guy so anything following on from that is inadmissible.

But this is a particularly unusual case in my opinion because:

  1. The cop didn’t know the law; got it wrong.

And

  1. Instead of lying and saying he had some other(legitimate) reason for stopping him the cop told the truth and admitted he was stopped for a dead tail light. This is not the way things would normally happen. The cop would normally lie and say something like he was driving erratically or whatever.[/quote]

That’s right. I forgot that it’s not illegal to have a single tail light out in that jurisdiction. However, if the officer had just followed the guy home and confronted him when he got out of the car, the officer still could legally ask for consent to search the car. The fact that the guy consented to the search is the problem. I would guess that’s how the Supreme Court viewed the case. Consent is consent. If the officer had pulled up beside the guy at a stoplight and asked to search the car, that would be completely lawful.

New question: Assuming that this happened in a jurisdiction in which it is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of taking an officer’s life:
What if the officer had told this guy the reason for his stop(unlawful), the guy told the officer he was leaving and began driving off, and the officer moved one hand toward his gun while reaching out and grabbing the driver’s arm with the other? Should the guy have been able to lawfully kill the officer at that time?

40

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You seen this one Aragorn?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/[/quote]