Illegally obtained evidence can now be used in court

[dblack]

And you needed additional proof that this is post-Constitutional Obamerica?

No, really???

The conservative Justices voted for this. The liberals were against it.

 

[HenryBHough]

The conservative Justice voted for this. The liberals were against it.

Yup.

Dante had it right - Abandon All Hope, Ye who.....

It's over.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

 

[Correll]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

BIG JUMP from asking a man leaving a drug den for ID to planting drugs.

. All depends, where as if a corrupt cop has motive to do evil or to get at someone, then anything can develope from a simple innocent stop.

Sure.

Which has nothing to do with this case. There is nothing here to say this cop is corrupt.

He saw a man leaving a drug den and stopped him and asked for id.

He reasonably thought he has cause.

I consider his reactions reasonable.

 

[Correll]

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

So, a murder victim might not get justice?

I like the idea someone posted above. Punish the cop, but keep the evidence.

 

[martybegan]

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

So, a murder victim might not get justice?

I like the idea someone posted above. Punish the cop, but keep the evidence.

The evidence was found due to a flagrant random stop (in the above scenario), and thus would not be admissible. It sucks, but the exclusionary rule is there for a reason, and I actually agree with it, even if it ruins some prosecutors case.


However,If the weapon was found in the situation of the actual case, and the warrant in the actual case was murder, I would think that now the gun would be admissible. Its because the cop had reason, even if it was flawed reason, to stop the guy, and he only searched him after he found out there was a warrant out on him.

 

[JoeMoma]

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

 

[JoeMoma]

It's absurd. If a cop can't obey the law, he probably plants evidence too. Not rocket science. Just common sense.

BIG JUMP from asking a man leaving a drug den for ID to planting drugs.

. All depends, where as if a corrupt cop has motive to do evil or to get at someone, then anything can develope from a simple innocent stop.

Sure.

Which has nothing to do with this case. There is nothing here to say this cop is corrupt.

He saw a man leaving a drug den and stopped him and asked for id.

He reasonably thought he has cause.

I consider his reactions reasonable.

It is perfectly legal for a cop to ask anyone he sees for ID. And people have the right to say no.

 

[martybegan]

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

 

[JoeMoma]

Also, is not an outstanding warrant an order for law enforcement to stop and arrest a person? So doesn't the existence of the warrent make the stoppage legal?

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

 

[martybegan]

I think that is what the decision is based on, in part. However if the cop had just randomly stopped a person on the street, I think the warrant wouldn't have mattered. The crux of the issue was while the stop was technically unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant", i.e. the cop was acting on some information, not no information.

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

 

[bendog]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

But the police can now stop me for no good reason at all. Not even a Terry Stop, where if I'm in the vicinity of a crime, or even just looking shady, the police can stop, talk to me, and even frisk me.

But now, even if I'm just walking along, the cops can detain me, and even arrest me, for absolutely no reason, and if it turns out hours, or days, later that I had an arrest warrant issued years ago for some charge that is no longer even active, anything they discovered while searching me for no good reason, can be used to convict me of something totally unrelated to the warrant.

I don't think the Founders had this in mind, and what makes it even a bit worse Thomas wrote it, and he's the one who somehow magically goes back into the minds of the Founders when it suits his purpose.

 

[bendog]

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

Why not?

 

[JoeMoma]

I agree with you about the basis of the court ruling. Let's take it a step further. Suppose a cop detains someone at random, runs the persons name and finds an outstanding warrent for murder. The cop then arrests the man he detained and does a frisk and search and finds illegal drugs.
Should the man be released since the stop was random or does the outstanding warrent (for murder) trump any possibility of a detention by a cop being illegal? Shouldn't the man with the outstanding warrent have the expectation that he may be arrested on sight due to the outstanding warrent. And if the cop found someone at random with and outstanding warrent at randon, then the cop simply got lucky. And since the arrest is legal due to the warrent, it's okay to charge the man for illegal drugs.

If he stops someone at random who does not have an outstanding warrent, then there is no basis for an arrest or frisk and search. Any detention of this man by the cop is unlawful and the cop should be subject to dicipline.

If the stop is random, anything found during the stop is inadmissible for whatever they find, so he would skate on the illegal drug charge, but still be detained for the murder warrant. The warrant doesn't go away because of the random stop. The warrant overrides the randomness of the stop, but the randomness makes anything found inadmissible.

The fun question is, lets say he has a murder warrant, and the murder weapon is found during the random stop. The murder warrant is still valid, but is the found weapon (and lets say it wasn't obvious on the guy, say in a bag of clothes) admissible in the murder case?

I would say no.

This is where you and I disagree. Perhaps where the Supreme Court and I would disagree also. If there is an outstanding warrent for arrest on a person, then that person has already lost by due process the right to not be detained, arrested and searched. A warrent for arrest is a document that has to be approved by a judge and should carry even more weight than a search warrent.
Suppose Joe Blow is walking down the street, and there is a warrent for the arrest of Joe. Does the warrent give authority to cops to arrest Joe. I say yes. In fact, the cops have the authority even even if they don't know it. A particular cop may not yet know about the warrent or know what Joe looks like, but the existence of the warrent still gives that cop the authority to arrest Joe Blow.

The problem with that is that it condones random searches. Remember, I think that in the case of a non-flagrant unlawful stop the gun would be in. The cop had some cause, even if it wasn't enough. To me only a truly random stop, a flagrant violation, would render the gun inadmissible.

How can a person be stopped unlawfully if there is an outstanding warrent for that person's arrest?

Because you can't just randomly stop people on the street looking for warrants.

You and I disagree on a mere technicallity. I agree that a cop shouldn't randomly stop people, hoping that when he runs the persons ID through the database that he will find an outstanding warrent. As soon as he does this to a person without an outstanding warrent, the cop is in trouble. And since most people don't have outstanding arrest warrent such random stops would be a bad practice. My main and perhaps only point is that a person for which there is a arrest warrant should not be able to use the fact that a search was random to have evidence thrown out. The warrent gives the cop the right to detain and arrest. If a cop makes a random stop and finds someone with an outstanding warrent for arrest, then the cop got very lucky.....he stopped someone for which he has authorization (the warrent) to arrest. That person's rights were not violated because that person has an outstanding warrent to be arrested and is suppose to be brought to justice.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

But the police can now stop me for no good reason at all. Not even a Terry Stop, where if I'm in the vicinity of a crime, or even just looking shady, the police can stop, talk to me, and even frisk me.

But now, even if I'm just walking along, the cops can detain me, and even arrest me, for absolutely no reason, and if it turns out hours, or days, later that I had an arrest warrant issued years ago for some charge that is no longer even active, anything they discovered while searching me for no good reason, can be used to convict me of something totally unrelated to the warrant.

I don't think the Founders had this in mind, and what makes it even a bit worse Thomas wrote it, and he's the one who somehow magically goes back into the minds of the Founders when it suits his purpose.

The arrest warrent would have to be active.

 

[bendog]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

But the police can now stop me for no good reason at all. Not even a Terry Stop, where if I'm in the vicinity of a crime, or even just looking shady, the police can stop, talk to me, and even frisk me.

But now, even if I'm just walking along, the cops can detain me, and even arrest me, for absolutely no reason, and if it turns out hours, or days, later that I had an arrest warrant issued years ago for some charge that is no longer even active, anything they discovered while searching me for no good reason, can be used to convict me of something totally unrelated to the warrant.

I don't think the Founders had this in mind, and what makes it even a bit worse Thomas wrote it, and he's the one who somehow magically goes back into the minds of the Founders when it suits his purpose.

The arrest warrent would have to be active.

Yes and how many active arrest warrants are there? According to the dissent three were 7.8 million outstanding. So, the opinion countenances "fishing expeditions." That's the practical effect.

The logical problem with the maj was spelled out this way:

The warrant check, in other words, was not an "intervening circumstance" separating the stop from the searchfor drugs. It was part and parcel of the officer’s illegal"expedition for evidence in the hope that something mightturn up." Brown, 422 U. S., at 605. Under our precedents,because the officer found Strieff ’s drugs by exploiting hisown constitutional violation, the drugs should be excluded.

That is, the warrant check itself stemmed from the illegal stop. That is, without the illegal stop, and subsequent illegal arrest for drugs, the warrant check would not have occurred. So, logically, the warrant check cannot be some "intervening" event.

Now the cops are always free to stop and chat with someone. And, if there's something suspicious ask for some ID, and if the person refuses, the cops can further detain an individual, and ultimately learn his identity and run a warrant check to arrest him on that warrant. But practically speaking, no body wants the effort and expense of arresting someone on an old warrant from another jurisdiction that most commonly is not some felony posing a imminent danger to the community.

 

[Owsi68]

"Is there a problem here? Everyone who objects to our new policy of "freedom" searches please step aside and have your papers ready for inspection!"

 

[martybegan]

Sounds perfectly reasons let to me. We need a JUSTICE System, not a Legal System.

We need to find, prosecute, punish, humiliate, and then isolate/exile those in our Society who cannot follow the rules. Allowing these people to hide behind weak defenses and legal hogwash is I suiting to the victims and their family.

That was one of the few barriers that stopped police from completely disregarding our right to privacy. We're turning into a police state.

I think this only applies in the specific case of someone having an outstanding warrant, which was the situation here. So even if the stop was not valid, the outstanding warrant trumps that, and once the officers know that, then anything they find is valid.

But the police can now stop me for no good reason at all. Not even a Terry Stop, where if I'm in the vicinity of a crime, or even just looking shady, the police can stop, talk to me, and even frisk me.

But now, even if I'm just walking along, the cops can detain me, and even arrest me, for absolutely no reason, and if it turns out hours, or days, later that I had an arrest warrant issued years ago for some charge that is no longer even active, anything they discovered while searching me for no good reason, can be used to convict me of something totally unrelated to the warrant.

I don't think the Founders had this in mind, and what makes it even a bit worse Thomas wrote it, and he's the one who somehow magically goes back into the minds of the Founders when it suits his purpose.

If its a flagrant violation of search rules, this ruling doesn't cover it. The cop in this case saw the person leave a known drug location, and didn't search until after he got ID from the person and then found out a warrant was out for his arrest.

This is a very narrowly constructed case.