Here are some I can think of:
That isnāt my understanding of what went down. Anyway, itās not really the point, I am thinking in terms of precedent.
Scenario A: Person A is illegally stopped (for whatever reason), cop runs ID and finds warrant for unpaid speeding ticket, cop cuffs person A and has authority to search car, finds gun being transported incorrectly, person A goes to jail for lord know how long for something completely unrelated because he forgot to pay a parking ticket.
For something entirely different.
I have no if that would be defense or murder, but thatās really got nothing to do with the prior warrant. soā¦
Iām really torn on this now.
Nick has made some good points.
What have you named that are not victimless?
I agree with you Beans
I have not named any non-victimless crimes. I thought you wanted some victimless crimes. Countingbeans helped me out and named some. I also posted this in response to your request:
All ācrimesā created by laws punishing possession, or prohibiting or regulating consensual trade. All ācrimesā created by laws punishing āpre-crimesā-i.e., laws punishing behavior that does not victimize others but statistically increases the probability that the person will victimize others. All ācrimesā created by laws regulating the use of personal property. Those are just a few examples.
Iām sure that you are going to bring up how the use and/or abuse of certain things hurts the children, who have no way to escape the relationship, of the user. While true, that is not a crime. That harm canāt be measured; and if the harm done by the userās action CAN be measured, then a true law prohibits his action.
Iām sure you will want to talk about DUI. While a drunk or drugged driver is most certainly less capable than he is under normal circumstances, there is no way to determine whether he is less capable a driver than others through the use of either arbitrary field tests or by his BAC being higher than the arbitrarily set legal BAC. Additionally, and both more importantly and relevantly for our purposes, neither his BAC nor the presence of narcotics in his blood victimizes others; no, while either may make him more likely to victimize another, to punish him without his having harmed anyone makes him a victimā¦as does punishing him more harshly for harm he causes than he would be had he been sober.
I should add that neither of the above would be āvictimlessā if they occurred on the private property of one prohibiting such.
This decision did not involve a vehicle. I also mistakenly thought that at first. The mere fact that the driver of a vehicle is wanted does not permit the search of the entire vehicle. While I disagree with such a law as your scenario deals, one does not have a legal right to break the law. This decision seems narrow in scope, merely confirming that a wanted man has no right to be unmolested in his travels.
I feel as though I should add that I would decide ānot guiltyā if I were on a jury deciding the possession charge; but that is because I oppose such laws and strongly support jury nullification, not because I think the officer violated the Fourth Amendment.
Oh, but it does. You seem to be making an argument that the accused could present the case, and be correct in doing so, that he was exercising his right to defend himself against an illegal arrest because the officer never told him that he was under arrest for the warrant, even with the evidence of the existence of an outstanding warrant for the accused at the time.
Huh? Iām not making an argument in regard to your scenario. I specifically avoided commenting on it because itās not relevant.
My problem isnāt with exercising a legal warrant. My problem is with Illegal arrests or Illegal stops.
The court simply confirmed that stopping a wanted man is a legal action. Someone whose arrest has been court ordered just has no standing to challenge the constitutionality of a stop, because he has no legal right to be free. There was no precedent set by this decision.
Again, that is not how I understand it. The court has confirmed that you can be illegally stopped and then anything found on your person can be used against you via separate charges if you have an outstanding warrant for anything.
Sorry, not sorry, that I think an illegal stop should be illegal and/or that the police should have to follow protocols and procedures designed to protect the rights of free citizensā¦ The police do not know until after the illegal stop whether or not the person has a warrant out for their arrest. It isnāt as if they are serving an arrest warrant, they, more or less just got lucky.
Everything stems from an illegal action by the police. That is my problem.
Everything in this incident stems from an existing warrant for the manās arrest. This decision was extremely narrow in scope-it changed nothing.
If a detention is without cause, this decision does not prevent the harmed from seeking either a civil remedy or criminal charge against an officer.
Itās important to remember that the arrestee was NOT a free man at the time-there was an existing warrant ordering his arrest.
It seems as though it was dumb luck on the officerās part that the guy had a warrant out for his arrest, but that doesnāt change the fact that the warrant existed. People are stopped in the same manner this guy was a thousand times a day, but no remedy is sought 999 times because nothing comes of it. This guy had no standing to challenge the stop, and 999 others that day didnāt see their stops either as problems or worth challenging.
Edit: I think itās worth noting that the explosion of laws in this country came soon after, and during the same time period(along with the federal income tax, etc.) as, the idea that evidence obtained without probable cause would be unadmissable came down from the Supreme Court. I wonder whether thereās a reason? Personally, I would prefer to risk being stopped and identified in a society without a massive web of prohibitions than stopped and identified with either reasonable suspicion or probable cause in a society that has generated such a huge number of laws that I couldnāt be sure I was not violating one.
Iām not sure what the officer said or did to the defendant to create a detention as opposed to a consensual encounter, but Iād like to know. As always, itās best to refuse to identify yourself unless you are told that you are not free to leave.
A cops mistake is not a get out of jail free card. If you have a Warrant out for murder and they make an illegal stop looking for drunk drivers. Nope they can not charge you with drunk driving even if you are drunk. But the body in the back seat. There was a legal warrant out for that crime. The murder and the drunk driving charge are not related in any way. It is not a game with silly rules.
Never implied that it wasā¦
Then you should have no problem with this ruling
The ruling was very narrow it did not say that an unpaid parking ticket excuses all unconstitutional acts after the fact. It merely said a warrant that makes the search legal is not invalidated after-the-fact by an unconstitutional Act.
Yes youāre more than implying that a violation after the fact is a get-out-of-jail card. Most of the justices are able to think and didnāt agree. A violation of Rights stands alone, it is a violation of Rightsit, can be punished by itself. But when that violation of Rights is not connected directly to a warrant then that warrant is valid.
I actually cannot respect the dissenting justices I think theyāre idiots. so maybe we should end this conversation because honestly there is no legitimate point of view that says a police violating your rights as a get-out-of-jail card for all crimes and warrant issued before that violationā¦ yes that is what youāre saying. The dissenting justices would have invalidated a warrant that had nothing to do with the police violation. It happened after the fact
Good lordā¦
Good for you.
Great idea.
