Tweet
In an article from USA Today:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...e-court-r.html
"In a victory for law enforcement, the Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors can, in some instances, use evidence obtained from illegal police searches.
USA TODAY's Joan Biskupic explains the ruling on the exclusionary rule, which upheld an Alabama man's conviction on drug and weapon charges:
When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search arise from "negligence … rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," evidence need not be kept from trial, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Roberts was joined by the four other conservative justices.
The four liberals dissented. They said that because the search violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence should have been excluded.
"The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for dissenters.
The New York Times writes that the decision will most likely please those who complain about criminals going free on “technicalities†and alarm those who fear that the high court is looking for ways to narrow the reach of the exclusionary rule.
Anybody care to comment on this decision? Athough the Fourth Amendment protects us from unlawful searches and siezures, I think under certain circumstances, as stated above, making an exception would make the most sense. Discipline the officer for being neglegent; don't take it out on a case that could very clearly be won with this evidence, had it been collected properly. I believe a similiar point of view is practiced in Europe (possibly England?) where the evidence is allowed and the officer is then disciplined.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...e-court-r.html
"In a victory for law enforcement, the Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors can, in some instances, use evidence obtained from illegal police searches.
USA TODAY's Joan Biskupic explains the ruling on the exclusionary rule, which upheld an Alabama man's conviction on drug and weapon charges:
When police mistakes leading to an unlawful search arise from "negligence … rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," evidence need not be kept from trial, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Roberts was joined by the four other conservative justices.
The four liberals dissented. They said that because the search violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence should have been excluded.
"The most serious impact of the court's holding will be on innocent persons wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information carelessly maintained in a computer database," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for dissenters.
The New York Times writes that the decision will most likely please those who complain about criminals going free on “technicalities†and alarm those who fear that the high court is looking for ways to narrow the reach of the exclusionary rule.
Anybody care to comment on this decision? Athough the Fourth Amendment protects us from unlawful searches and siezures, I think under certain circumstances, as stated above, making an exception would make the most sense. Discipline the officer for being neglegent; don't take it out on a case that could very clearly be won with this evidence, had it been collected properly. I believe a similiar point of view is practiced in Europe (possibly England?) where the evidence is allowed and the officer is then disciplined.
Comment