Willravel

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm probably going to fall on dksuddeth's side on this one. The 4th Amendment is not actually that complex. The search is only admissible if the arrest is legal. This, of course, is to prevent the police from searching when and where they want by using BS arrests that would never hold up. It's a very simple concept.

I was watching Boston Legal (or Drugs for Liberals) last night and the main character, Alan Shore, appeared before the supreme court in order to defend a mentally disabled man from being executed. During the course of his opening arguments, he got off topic and began to read the supreme court justices the riot act over becoming partisan. I was almost in tears, and I find it to be quite relevant. I hope you'll watch (starts at 3:29):

I advise you to watch this quickly, as it will be removed soon.

Ustwo

I don't have much comment on this without further review, but how does a unanimous decision relate to partisanship of the supreme court?

Normally I'd be very much against this sort of thing but the UNpartisan nature of this decision makes me want to look into the details more.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I think you misunderstand. While the character's argument's main point is that of partisanship, he speaks of the erosion of the honor of the supreme court. How they've abandoned their responsibilities. That's what is relevant.

Seaver

I'd like to know more. His liscense was suspended... because of what? Was he a drug-runner beforehand? Did he have multiple drug convictions? If so then it brings in probable cause and warrants a search.

It doesn't even say if he consented to the search.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Shauk

I'm truly speechless....

I don't see how this is even right.

loquitur

Will, actually the fourth amendment is unbelievably complex, which is why when I read the summary of the case I had no idea whether the decision is defensible or not. I'd need to read the opinion and even then, since I know very little about fourth amendment jurisprudence (haven't really looked at it much, other than current events, since law school), I'm not sure I'd have a view on it.

The other thing is, this case has a federalism overlap, i.e. the interplay of state law and federal constitutional protection. It's just not clear to me that the former dictates the scope of the latter on the facts of this case. I can see the argument that it should but also the argument that it shouldn't.

Law isn't about results, it's about principles. Sometimes having the rule of law means that the results in a particular case may seem unjust. But that's what we have a Supreme Court for, to give us the principles.

dksuddeth

cliff notes:

the police may arrest you for any offense, no matter how minor or if state law requires only a summons, and any evidence obtained from the ongoing illegal search does not need to be supressed.

The only protection the 4th Amendment now guarantees is that if you are comitting no crime, have not comitted a crime, nor are about to commit a crime, then any search of your person, car, or home will be considered illegal. Evidence resulting from said search will still not be supressed (in federal court) and your only redress will be to file civil rights violations against the offending police officers which will result in a dismissed suit because agents of the state have almost unlimited qualified immunity.

Remember, I predicted this and so did others.

Will, the USSC abandoned their responsibilities when FDR asked for 6 more justices. Since then it has been all downhill.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

girldetective

willravel said : I think you misunderstand. While the character's argument's main point is that of partisanship, he speaks of the erosion of the honor of the supreme court. How they've abandoned their responsibilities. That's what is relevant.

I understand your point and its relevance. Unfortunately this Court will be with us for some time to come and it is good to be aware of its doings. I am especially pleased to see the subject on national, prime-time broadcast TV. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

irateplatypus

i'm fairly certain that is not true.

the supreme court has granted police extra power to search vehicles (versus homes, for example). cars are able (along with their drivers) to be on the other side of the country by the time a warrant is issued. the court has allowed loosened standards for searches when the potential evidence can be moved/destroyed before law enforcement has a chance to act.

i don't know much of anything about this decision (other than the cited article), but i don't think its application is as broad as feared. search of homes has remained undisturbed for decades: they still need a warrant or valid consent absent such exigent circumstances. in fact, the GA v. Randolph decision in 2006 actually curtailed police' ability to search under certain circumstances.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill