US Supreme Court rules cops can use illegally seized evidence.

[letusbuyyourcar]

The war on drugs has ruined the fourth.

That said it all,right there.

 

[Shemp]

Did you read the whole article?This was an obscure part of the law that the legislation had not updated.Every state has, can't sell a car in the state without both or three lights working, I believe NC has inspections and all lights must be working. This is a mistake by the legislation. I think it would be reasonable for anyone reading this that the vast majority of officers anywhere would not be aware of this oversite.. Bet it's fixed soon by the legislation.

I guess I'm far less trusting of the government to correct itself..I mean it's done it so many times in the past, right?

 

[Ken Ford]

I guess I'm far less trusting of the government to correct itself..I mean it's done it so many times in the past, right?

LOL I agree, I don't trust them for nothin!But this particular incident is not a new and unprecedented intrusion.

 

[Shemp]

LOL I agree, I don't trust them for nothin!But this particular incident is not a new and unprecedented intrusion.

True..but now it has a legal footing.

 

[mkdhotrod]

True..but now it has a legal footing.

The point is moot because the court ruled that the fact that he misunderstood the law is grounds for illegally obtained evidence is still admissible, regardless of what the law said, it has much more of a broad scope, because they aren't saying cops in north carolina can use illegally obtained evidence for cars with only one tailight, they are saying if they misunderstand the law, the evidence can still be used. This completely destroys the fruit from the poisonous tree concept.

 

[howl]

It doesn't seem like a big deal on the face of it. The troubling part is how the decision is used in practice. Look at how they misuse no-knocks and get away with it. If the overseers in law enforcement can use this to improve their stats, it's gonna happen.

 

[Shemp]

It doesn't seem like a big deal on the face of it. The troubling part is how the decision is used in practice. Look at how they misuse no-knocks and get away with it. If the overseers in law enforcement can use this to improve their stats, it's gonna happen.

This...most things start out innocently enough....see Bronies.

 

[captdave77]

The Coke was discovered by way of consensual search which is pretty dumb if you have a bag of booger sugar in the trunk. The question becomes would the decision be the same if he did not give consent?

I can't believe I agree with Sotomayor on anything besides our mutual love of women. This opens the door to "misunderstand" the law in order to search citizens.

It is not legal to initiate contact with someone based on the presence of a firearm, but an officer could just "not know" that and shake you down.

 

[mkdhotrod]

The Coke was discovered by way of consensual search which is pretty dumb if you have a bag of booger sugar in the trunk. The question becomes would the decision be the same if he did not give consent?

I can't believe I agree with Sotomayor on anything besides our mutual love of women. This opens the door to "misunderstand" the law in order to search citizens.

It is not legal to initiate contact with someone based on the presence of a firearm, but an officer could just "not know" that and shake you down.

Exactly, and during that Terry pat, if he finds anything he can articulate into probable cause, he can now search your vehicle and anything found can be used. All because you were legally carrying.

 

[captdave77]

This is the same as a typo on a warrant or report.
I don't see the issue, other laws are that all external lighting on a vehicle must function.

Unless this is in support of criminals walking on obscure technicalities, I think this is a non issue.

I prefer to err on the side of freedom.