[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.[/quote]
If an officer arrests a man for evidence obtained in an unlawful search, has he not used that evidence?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.[/quote]
If an officer arrests a man for evidence obtained in an unlawful search, has he not used that evidence?[/quote]
Please rephrase. I don’t understand what you’re asking.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.[/quote]
If an officer arrests a man for evidence obtained in an unlawful search, has he not used that evidence?[/quote]
Please rephrase. I don’t understand what you’re asking.[/quote]
You said that the SCOTUS decision is a problem “because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.” My question is, how is an officer making an arrest based on unlawfully obtained evidence NOT making use of such evidence?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.[/quote]
If an officer arrests a man for evidence obtained in an unlawful search, has he not used that evidence?[/quote]
Please rephrase. I don’t understand what you’re asking.[/quote]
You said that the SCOTUS decision is a problem “because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.” My question is, how is an officer making an arrest based on unlawfully obtained evidence NOT making use of such evidence? [/quote]
“Use” in this context means the admission of the evidence in court to support a conviction. Its effectively a term of art.
For example, the cops could “use” a trunk full of illegally seized coke by snorting it off a hookers ass, but they couldn’t show the coke to a jury to support a conviction.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.[/quote]
If an officer arrests a man for evidence obtained in an unlawful search, has he not used that evidence?[/quote]
Please rephrase. I don’t understand what you’re asking.[/quote]
You said that the SCOTUS decision is a problem “because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.” My question is, how is an officer making an arrest based on unlawfully obtained evidence NOT making use of such evidence? [/quote]
Lol! “Use” in court. Present in court as evidence. It is “inadmissible” in court. The evidence cannot be “used” - presented, taken into account by the judge/jury etc.
[quote] NickViar wrote:
You said that the SCOTUS decision is a problem “because it allows police to use evidence obtained via an illegitimate search.” My question is, how is an officer making an arrest based on unlawfully obtained evidence NOT making use of such evidence? [/quote]
It is about use in court as admissible evidence to obtain a verdict against the accused.
Wow.
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lol! “Use” in court. Present in court as evidence. It is “inadmissible” in court. The evidence cannot be “used” - presented, taken into account by the judge/jury etc.[/quote]
Okay, because he certainly used the evidence when he testified to his probable cause in front of the magistrate.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
There is specific legislation for a defendant being “awarded costs” in such situations. You usually have to show that the prosecution were reckless, malicious, inept, dishonest etc, and you ask the magistrate to award you costs for the expense incurred in preparing your defence, travel and witness costs etc.
Now regarding a “bond”. You get your bond back when you show up in court. If any extra expenses are incurred you may be able to request costs. See above.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[/quote]
Why? Okay, let’s say that the man did not bond out, and the court case was three weeks later. Should the police officer have to serve three weeks in jail?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[/quote]
Oh, yes just reread. The police officer is not personally liable of course but costs can be awarded by the court in some situations as mentioned above.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[/quote]
Why? Okay, let’s say that the man did not bond out, and the court case was three weeks later. Should the police officer have to serve three weeks in jail?[/quote]
Are you trolling? The policeman hasn’t been charged with anything. He’s not on trial. What are you talking about?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
There is specific legislation for a defendant being “awarded costs” in such situations. You usually have to show that the prosecution were reckless, malicious, inept, dishonest etc, and you ask the magistrate to award you costs for the expense incurred in preparing your defence, travel and witness costs etc.
Now regarding a “bond”. You get your bond back when you show up in court. If any extra expenses are incurred you may be able to request costs. See above.[/quote]
Bondsmen don’t work for free-they typically have about a 10% fee.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
There is specific legislation for a defendant being “awarded costs” in such situations. You usually have to show that the prosecution were reckless, malicious, inept, dishonest etc, and you ask the magistrate to award you costs for the expense incurred in preparing your defence, travel and witness costs etc.
Now regarding a “bond”. You get your bond back when you show up in court. If any extra expenses are incurred you may be able to request costs. See above.[/quote]
Bondsmen don’t work for free-they typically have about a 10% fee.[/quote]
Right, but the policeman won’t be liable for anything because he’s not on trial. Under some circumstances you can be awarded costs by the court in which case the court would pay reasonable costs such as the bail bondsman’s fee.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[/quote]
Why? Okay, let’s say that the man did not bond out, and the court case was three weeks later. Should the police officer have to serve three weeks in jail?[/quote]
Are you trolling? The policeman hasn’t been charged with anything. He’s not on trial. What are you talking about?[/quote]
Agreed. I think his point is to say an officer should suffer some personal penalty if he has engaged in misconduct, and he is defining misconduct to be so broad as to arresting someone who is ultimately determined to be not guilty of the crime.
That is absurd. As a corollary, of course, cops and other officials can be brought to justice for misconduct by the victim, but the misconduct must be of an awfully sever nature such that it overrides immunity.
Yes, and that would be a separate action in which the police officer was the defendant.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[/quote]
Why? Okay, let’s say that the man did not bond out, and the court case was three weeks later. Should the police officer have to serve three weeks in jail?[/quote]
Why would it be terrible? For one thing, criminal convictions in the US run at about 17.5%. That would mean, in 82.5% of the time the arresting officer would serve time instead of the defendant. You see, just because someone is found not guilty or the charges are dropped or whatever, doesn’t mean the arresting officers necessarily did anything wrong.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Maybe I can change my unlawful arrest question slightly and get a better idea of where people stand. Let’s say that the court decides that the evidence IS inadmissible and finds the driver not guilty. Let’s also say that the driver, a poor man with many failure to appears on his record, was granted a $5,000 bond. A bail bondsman posted that bond for him. Should the police officer that made the arrest be liable for repaying the bondsman for the driver?[/quote]
No. That would be a terrible policy.
[/quote]
Why? Okay, let’s say that the man did not bond out, and the court case was three weeks later. Should the police officer have to serve three weeks in jail?[/quote]
Are you trolling? The policeman hasn’t been charged with anything. He’s not on trial. What are you talking about?[/quote]
I’m just trying to understand where everybody stands on this. Illegally obtained evidence should not be admissible in court, but there should be no legal repercussions for the person illegally obtaining evidence? Should the officer that arrest someone based on illegally obtained evidence perhaps be charged with kidnapping?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As a corollary, of course, cops and other officials can be brought to justice for misconduct by the victim, but the misconduct must be of an awfully sever nature such that it overrides immunity.
[/quote]
Correct. Qualified immunity is an extremely difficult hurdle to overcome. Mistakes, even egregious ones, don’t get you there.