US Supreme Court rules cops can use illegally seized evidence.

[strider12]

When the whip comes down you will be the first with your ass in the air

You don't know me then.

 

[strider12]

If this guy would have just bent over.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/12/21...ar-old-man-class-c-misdemeanor-didnt-commit/

 

[BIKER13]

You don't know me then.

Must not. You seem to have embraced the Laufenesque ideals of late.

 

[strider12]

Must not. You seem to have embraced the Laufenesque ideals of late.

Really. Believing that one should treat another man how he would be treated is somehow wrong?

Good to know.

 

[Ken Ford]

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.

No no no. That is a specific law that is known and in the handbook.What we are talking about is a small hidden description in the library of laws. I have most of the Georgia Law at home. I am missing a few chapters (large hard cover volumes) it takes up about 4feet on my shelf. Lawyers study for 4 and more years and still don't know all the contents.While there may be a few un proffesional officers that would try to use "ignorance" as a reason for a suspicious arrest, I doubt the circumstances would be as clear as in this case. Even the Supreme Court Justices had no idea of this over sight.The Defence was strictly trying an obscure technicality to get out of an arrest. Very few out of the multitude of officers would consider such an infront to the spirit of the law.Get over your selves and realize that cops are not out looking for ways to trample your rights. Most cops are just like the ones you call friends.

 

[Cobalt 60]

No no no. That is a specific law that is known and in the handbook.What we are talking about is a small hidden description in the library of laws. I have most of the Georgia Law at home. I am missing a few chapters (large hard cover volumes) it takes up about 4feet on my shelf. Lawyers study for 4 and more years and still don't know all the contents.While there may be a few un proffesional officers that would try to use "ignorance" as a reason for a suspicious arrest, I doubt the circumstances would be as clear as in this case. Even the Supreme Court Justices had no idea of this over sight.The Defence was strictly trying an obscure technicality to get out of an arrest. Very few out of the multitude of officers would consider such an infront to the spirit of the law.Get over your selves and realize that cops are not out looking for ways to trample your rights. Most cops are just like the ones you call friends.

But ALL motions to suppress are based on "technicalities". In the past, there was no wiggle room, and for good reason. If there was not a violation to justify a stop, then it was a bad search, period. And the fact of the matter is that trickery is encouraged as a law enforcement technique. This opens the door to more. I don't think it will be rampant, but it will occur. And, frankly, many LEO's are not schooled on the "technicalities" of the laws they enforce. Not knocking them, as they should not be charged with complete knowledge of the law.

Why do the police get a free "oops" card? Those charged with crimes do not.

Why is it a crime for someone being investigated to lie to the police, but it is accepted and encouraged behavior for the police to lie to suspects?

I like police officers for the most part. They need to push the envelope - if you are on the road and not having to testify at a MTS hearing once in a while, you are probably not doing your job. But the prosecution also needs to lose the hearing when there is not a violation. There needs to be a bright line rule on this. Anything else leads to lying and bad policing. The police should not be operating on the same level as the people they are trying to catch.

 

[mkdhotrod]

But ALL motions to suppress are based on "technicalities". In the past, there was no wiggle room, and for good reason. If there was not a violation to justify a stop, then it was a bad search, period. And the fact of the matter is that trickery is encouraged as a law enforcement technique. This opens the door to more. I don't think it will be rampant, but it will occur. And, frankly, many LEO's are not schooled on the "technicalities" of the laws they enforce. Not knocking them, as they should not be charged with complete knowledge of the law.

Why do the police get a free "oops" card? Those charged with crimes do not.

Why is it a crime for someone being investigated to lie to the police, but it is accepted and encouraged behavior for the police to lie to suspects?

I like police officers for the most part. They need to push the envelope - if you are on the road and not having to testify at a MTS hearing once in a while, you are probably not doing your job. But the prosecution also needs to lose the hearing when there is not a violation. There needs to be a bright line rule on this. Anything else leads to lying and bad policing. The police should not be operating on the same level as the people they are trying to catch.

You hit the nail on the head sir. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Spas-12 Owner]

 

[grainchaser]

The 4th is a dead letter. Still think you live in a Constitutional Republic? LOL

 

[mkdhotrod]

The 4th is a dead letter. Still think you live in a Constitutional Republic? LOL

Lol, we live in a democracy now. The Republic died with T. Roosevelt.