SCOTUS Hates on the Fourth Some More

[Lucille]

Is there any doubt that our black-robed overlords won't uphold the Indiana SC decision?

"Our Homes Are Supposed To Be Our Castles" (http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/our-homes-are-supposed-to-be-o)


The Cato Institute’s Tim Lynch explains what the Supreme Court got wrong today in its 8-1 decision in Kentucky v. King:...

It's going to take a revolution to restore our liberties, ... [Mod cut due to forum guidelines]

[nate895]

It's rare when Ginsburg writes anything decent at all.

[aGameOfThrones]

The volokh's take on it.

http://volokh.com/2011/05/16/kentucky-v-king-and-police-created-exigent-circumstances/

[Lucille]

[Mod cut due to forum guidelines]

Sorry!

Is it OK if I second Thomas Jefferson in the hit & run comments section?

[Brian4Liberty]

When Kagan was being confirmed, someone posted that at least she would stick up for civil liberties... not looking like it.

[aGameOfThrones]

“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may*ensue.” Kentucky v. King.

[fisharmor]

http://elenaives.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Constitution_toilet_paper.jpg

[Pericles]

The world has truly turned upside down when only Justice Ginsburg of the Nine upholds the Constitution of the United States.

[Lucille]

Will Grigg: Farewell, Fourth Amendment (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/88300.html)

[erowe1]

Where in the Constitution is the idea that only evidence that was properly discovered should be admissible in court?

[nate895]

Where in the Constitution is the idea that only evidence that was properly discovered should be admissible in court?

It's part of the "due process of law" clause in the fifth amendment.

[aGameOfThrones]

You should read the dissenting opinion in its entirety.

[fisharmor]

Where in the Constitution is the idea that only evidence that was properly discovered should be admissible in court?

The only alternative is to hold the enforcers accountable and convict them criminally.
That was never and is never going to happen.
So the only way to lend any teeth to the 4th is to throw it out of court.

But I'll grant you, criminal conviction of the enforcers is the proper option.

[erowe1]

It's part of the "due process of law" clause in the fifth amendment.

Is that based on a living document view of the text?

[TastyWheat]

It's more of a violation of the 4th than the 5th Amendment. The search is unreasonable because of the very subjective nature of the search and the ample room for abuse. If a police officer smells something similar to marijuana then they can barge in and whatever they find is fair game. Ever hear about Herring v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_v._United_States)? It was an equally ridiculous ruling, although a much closer decision. Because of these two rulings police officers can make up pretty lame "evidence" or completely fabricate it to search someone's property, then anything they find is fair game. Reasonable, being an obviously subjective term, should tend to favor the accused, not the state.

[kah13176]

It's more of a violation of the 4th than the 5th Amendment. The search is unreasonable because of the very subjective nature of the search and the ample room for abuse. If a police officer smells something similar to marijuana then they can barge in and whatever they find is fair game. Ever hear about Herring v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_v._United_States)? It was an equally ridiculous ruling, although a much closer decision. Because of these two rulings police officers can make up pretty lame "evidence" or completely fabricate it to search someone's property, then anything they find is fair game. Reasonable, being an obviously subjective term, should tend to favor the accused, not the state.

I actually wrote a paper on Herring v. US for my high school government class 2 years ago. Herring v. US basically gives police the right to invade a home without warrant as long as ithe police can show that they "acted in good faith", or that the warrant's expiration status was mistaken, or that the officers didn't "deliberately" violate 4th Amendment rights, etc. Interestingly, Ginsburg voted to uphold the 4th Amendment in that case as well.

[devil21]

The world has truly turned upside down when only Justice Ginsburg of the Nine upholds the Constitution of the United States.

Has there ever been a unanimous SCOTUS decision? I think Ginsberg's sole vote is theater to continue the illusion of a balanced court. Every decision passes with 5-4 (oooh so close...we almost upheld the Constitution) or crap like this 8-1 with a single judge REQUIRED to author a dissent so there is some.

[S.Shorland]

Jury Nullification - It's fast becoming the only thing you have over there,it seems.

[erowe1]

It's more of a violation of the 4th than the 5th Amendment. The search is unreasonable because of the very subjective nature of the search and the ample room for abuse. If a police officer smells something similar to marijuana then they can barge in and whatever they find is fair game. Ever hear about Herring v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herring_v._United_States)? It was an equally ridiculous ruling, although a much closer decision. Because of these two rulings police officers can make up pretty lame "evidence" or completely fabricate it to search someone's property, then anything they find is fair game. Reasonable, being an obviously subjective term, should tend to favor the accused, not the state.

Where does the 4th Amendment say anything about improperly attained evidence not being acceptable in court?

[eproxy100]

The title and OP doesn't do this issue justice.

They're taking away the 4th amendment! Any cop can claim to have smelled pot and then they can bust into any house they please.

[Lucille]

The title and OP doesn't do this issue justice.

They're taking away the 4th amendment! Any cop can claim to have smelled pot and then they can bust into any house they please.

I can change it to something like, "SCOTUS Annuls the Fourth Amendment"

ETA: I tried to change it. No can do.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnam3SR_POQ

[Pericles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnam3SR_POQ

I never knew The Collins had a brother.:collins:

[GunnyFreedom]

I actually wrote a paper on Herring v. US for my high school government class 2 years ago. Herring v. US basically gives police the right to invade a home without warrant as long as ithe police can show that they "acted in good faith", or that the warrant's expiration status was mistaken, or that the officers didn't "deliberately" violate 4th Amendment rights, etc. Interestingly, Ginsburg voted to uphold the 4th Amendment in that case as well.

One of the NC GA Republican bills that I objected to vehemently (voting, speaking on the floor etc) was to codify the "good faith exception to the exclusionary rule" into NC General Statute. That bill was the Republican Majority Leaders, and is in part why I have 10 public bills and not a single one has been heard in subcommittee as of yet...