Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wonderful news! This is particularly good news in a time when SCOTUS typically has been helping our Big Government get even more powerful.
Thank you SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!
---------------------
Fourth Amendment advocates scored a victory today when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a warrantless police search that involved an officer entering private property for the purpose of examining a motorcycle stored under a tarp in the driveway near a home. "In physically intruding on the curtilage of [Ryan Austin] Collins' home to search the motorcycle," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority in Collins v. Virginia, the officer "not only invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the item searched, i.e., the motorcycle, but also invaded Collins' Fourth Amendment interest in the curtilage of his home."
That's strict constructionism for you. Found guilty based on evidence that was gathered breaking your Fourth Amendment rights? Sucks to be you, sez Thomas.
Incidentally, this finding is a great example of legislating from the bench and why it's such an integral part of US law.
That's strict constructionism for you. Found guilty based on evidence that was gathered breaking your Fourth Amendment rights? Sucks to be you, sez Thomas.
Incidentally, this finding is a great example of legislating from the bench and why it's such an integral part of US law.
I'd rather see all valid evidence included... and then the cops should be prosecuted for any laws they broke via their illegal search methods.
But the current half-baked system works well enough for billionaires, so it won't be changed.
That's strict constructionism for you. Found guilty based on evidence that was gathered breaking your Fourth Amendment rights? Sucks to be you, sez Thomas.
Incidentally, this finding is a great example of legislating from the bench and why it's such an integral part of US law.
Having nothing to do with this ruling, it sounds to me that you are lacking in a fundamental understanding of how this precedence (stare decisis) occurred, and why Thomas views it, and presumably why Alito voted in the minority (I have not yet had an opportunity to read his dissent).
So let me take a couple of minutes to inform you of something you likely don't know.
Prior to 1961 evidence obtained by the state could be used against a suspect, even if that evidence was obtained under questionable means. The person obtaining the evidence might very well have been punished, but their mistake (accidental or intentional) did not automatically mean a murderer, rapist, etc., would get off because of it.
So while our 4th Amendment does protect us in many facets, the mistakes of an investigation did not nullify the crimes and evidence thereof of the suspect.
That ruling in 1961 (Mapp vs. Ohio) by the Warren court was unprecedented in our constitutional history, and indeed contrary to another prior scotus case. Thus it was the activist court of CJ Warren that went against stare decisis to create this, not the other way around.
Frankly, one could argue it was a good rule to adhere to, thereby deterring unlawful police conduct.
However that misses the point, because it was never democratically prescribed in the 4th Amendment.
Aside from looking forward to your reply on that score, please also explain what you meant by the last sentence regarding "great example of legislating from the bench - integral part of US law" ?
Great ruling and it's sad that we have one that believes as Alito does here.
His entire dissent is the "close enough" argument that makes the search "reasonable."
The sad part of that dissent is that it violates the spirit of the Constitution to always defer limits to the government and leeway to the citizen. The entire Bill of Rights is a set of both explicit and implicit instructions that when in doubt, the citizen and individual liberty win, and the government and tyranny lose.
Alito is arguing that "close enough" lets the government get over on the citizen in order to nab the bad guy, curtilage be damned.
Shame on him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
