Supreme Court Eases Limits on Evidence

[insanity]

Given the experience I had recently, I found this interesting. Conclusion I've come to is that you better make sure your shiit is trump tight and know exactly who/what has been in/around your vehicle/home at all times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html

[Never Enuff]

Notwithstanding the recent decision, your comments are true, it's better to be safe than sorry.
Jay

[Chris]

Speaking specifically to the case the court heard and based their decision upon, if you're a guy who has meth and an illegal handgun and it's found during a mistake-based arrest, under what logical reason SHOULD this individual be not required to answer for his crimes?

[Never Enuff]

The question turns on the phrase "mistake based arrest". Also I'm not sure you can use the word "logic" when you are referring to some of the decisions I've seen come from the court--starting with the Warren court!!! In the early 60's street justice seemed to be pretty effective, with some exceptions. I'm sure X rated will take exception to this, as most defense attorneys would:boxing_smiley:
Jay

[Chris]

Well, in the case the court heard, they ran the guy and he hit on an outstanding warrant from another county. The warrant was no longer valid but hadn't been removed from the database. When they popped him, they searched and fount the dope and the gun.

Now here's why I couldn't care less that the Supreme Court is easing back on these things-

-I've never been the subject of an arrest warrant.

-I don't have meth in my car.

-I do have a weapon, but I'm permitted to carry it.

-I haven't been pulled over by a LEO in over a decade.

I guess I'm just one of those people that has no worries because I'm doing absolutely nothing to draw attention to myself. And it's not for lack of opportunity. I drive about 45,000 miles a year

[Never Enuff]

And I never arrested anyone for DWI that admitted to having over 2 beers:):). I understand what you mean--I never had enough time to just sit somewhere and think of how to screw with someone and then stop them for no apparent reason. But that's the other half of the story. I did hear a rumor once in the early 60's that some people thought long hair and a VW mini van was considered probable cause. Maybe thats where some of the case law we complain about came from??? :sifone::sifone:
Jay

[Never Enuff]

Chris,
Some people will surely see the decision as an erosion of the exclusionary rule ie; fruit of the poisonous tree.
Jay

[Buoy]

-I haven't been pulled over by a LEO in over a decade.



What did you get jacked for?:)

[Buoy]

I have mixed feelings on this one.
In this guys case, obviously, he needed to get caught.
But, at the same time, does this open it up for all LEO's to say "sorry, it was a mistake, we didn't actually need or have a legitimate right to search you"?
I see where Insanity is coming from on this.

I fly a pretty straight and narrow line these days. I don't have much to worry about, aside from a hassle.

[Never Enuff]

In most case that go up on appeal you will see the appeals court use the phrase "the totality of the circumstances" which means they look very carefully at ALL facts surrounding the case before determining whether the circumstances fit the exception to the exclusionary rule. This includes not only the record of the officers testimony but all other facts of the case including the record of the testimony of the defendant. Also if there is any question, the defendant(or his attorney) can ask for a seperate hearing regarding the admissability of evidence before the case goes to trial. Maybe X rated can shed more light on this process.
Jay

[Chris]

What did you get jacked for?:)

Nothing more than speeding.

[Buoy]

Nothing more than speeding.

In the past 9.5 yrs, that has been my only experience with the law also.
In a way, I was just shocked you got busted for something at all.

[Rush]

In the past 9.5 yrs, that has been my only experience with the law also.
In a way, I was just shocked you got busted for something at all.


Now the question would be, What did you get jacked for?:)

Just kidding You have the right to remain silent. :26::26:

[Buoy]

Now the question would be, What did you get jacked for?:)

Just kidding You have the right to remain silent. :26::26:

Fair question.
In the past 9.5 yrs...
Coming home from the '06 Cumberland run got jacked for 72 in a 55.
Go further back than 9.5 yrs, and I'm pleading the 5th.:)

[Rush]

Fair question.
In the past 9.5 yrs...
Coming home from the '06 Cumberland run got jacked for 72 in a 55.
Go further back than 9.5 yrs, and I'm pleading the 5th.:)

Thats a good idea, because everything you say on sos, can and most definitely will be used against you.:biggrinjester::leaving: