Monday's USSC decision - you can now be stopped any anytime for no rea

1. 82

   ptosisposted 9 years ago

   http://www.wesh.com/politics/sotomayor- … s/40139626
   
   The Supreme Court ruled Monday that courts need not throw out evidence of a crime even if the arresting police officer used unlawful tactics to obtain it.
   
   Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court majority agreed that South Salt Lake police officer Douglas Fackrell did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Strieff as he exited a house being watched for drug activity. But once Fackrell radioed in and found that there was an outstanding warrant on Strieff for a traffic violation, he was able to arrest and search him, and the discovery of the drugs was legitimate, the justices ruled.
   
   Sotomeyer
   dissent:
   
   "By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time," she added. "It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."
   
   While the court held that the initial stop was unconstitutional, due to lack of reasonable suspicion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that overturned the Utah Supreme Court and held that because the arrest warrant was valid, the evidence was admissible.
   
   This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants -- even if you are doing nothing wrong," Sotomeyer wrote. The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer's violation of your Fourth Amendment rights," she added.
   
   She continued that being stopped on the street is more than a small "indignity." She said the officer can search a citizens' bag, order him or her to stand "helpless," perhaps even conduct a "frisk."
   
   "This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may 'feel with sensitive fingers every portion of (your) body. A thorough search (may) be made of (your) arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.'
   
   So now is it the old standard of " an officer typically needs "reasonable articulable suspicion." has been been thrown out? It used to be the lowest standard in the criminal system - Do we now have Zero Standards?
   
   The old  and now obsolete standard was; . "Whether an arrest is valid depends upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it-whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the person to be arrested had committed or was committing an offense." (Beck v. Ohio)
   
   "A consensual police encounter is often anything but. Cops have guns, and handcuffs, and the power to arrest you or make your life difficult if you are rude or uncooperative. Judicial assumptions are flawed about the reactions of reasonable, innocent people during ‘consensual’ encounters with police.” -  Alisa L. Smith
   

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ptosisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      “sole purpose was to fish for evidence”,
      Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
      
      An extension of the exclusionary rule established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). This doctrine holds that evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the “fruit” of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence. 
      
      Now Poisoned fruit is OK according to USSC-disgusting
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      replyreport