PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Rules Illegally Gathered Evidence Can Be Used Against Defendants




DamianTV
06-29-2016, 02:58 PM
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/two-court-decisions-further-destroy-fourth-amendment-protections.html


By Derrick Broze

Two recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal court in Virginia continue the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure.

Two controversial rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and a federal judge in Virginia have civil liberties activists concerned about future abuse of power by law enforcement. On June 20, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of a crime can be used against a defendant even if the evidence was gathered illegally. In a 5 to 3 decision, the court’s liberal judge warned that the ruling might encourage future rights violations.

The Associated Press reports:

The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for him. Police Detective Doug Fackrell arrested Strieff and routinely searched him, finding that he was carrying methamphetamine.

The case raised the question of whether the valid warrant outweighs the stop, which was illegal because Fackrell lacked any reasonable suspicion that Strieff had been violating the law. It was the court’s latest case that questions whether evidence should be thrown out of court because the police did something wrong or illegal that led to the discovery of the evidence.

Since the 1914 case Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 4th Amendment to mean that evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court. According to the Supreme Court’s more liberal judges, this ruling could set a dangerous new precedent.

...

Full article on link.

---

Without privacy, everything is potentially a crime.

Without adherence to its own laws, governments have legalized their own criminal actions.

ligant
06-29-2016, 04:31 PM
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C. J., and KENNEDY, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J.,filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined as to Parts I,II, and III. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J.,joined.

But i was told over the last 8 years on this forum about how awesome Clarence Thomas is as a judge...
I guess ron paul supporters likes to lie...

ChristianAnarchist
06-29-2016, 06:00 PM
Goons gonna goon your stuff... None of this is shocking anymore and that's unfortunate...

Weston White
07-01-2016, 02:59 AM
I get the feeling this case is being misrepresented, as VA is not a stop and id state; the perp, from my understanding cooperated with the stop and provided his identification to the officer, to this point it is legally deemed a "consensual contact", so everything subsequent to the discovery of his outstanding warrant is legal. It would have been a different case if he said something like I do not consent to your line of questions, if you are not arresting me I am leaving, okay, and the cop said nope, your being detained, give me your id or else I will arrest you...

The more bothersome case is the VA federal trial court ruling, finding that you have no expectation of privacy while visiting the Internet, which is of course only true to a degree, as you establish an expectation of privacy as per your browser settings, proxy usage, the Website's TOS, and the like--while the government circumvents that through the use of malicious software, unbeknownst to the user, this is the digital equivalent to installing a GPS device on an individual's vehicle to track their movements, an action which does require a warrant (and the government already realized this fact, which is why they had first obtained a warrant anyway to install their form of malware on visiting computers.)