I’ve been posting like a maniac today, but I don’t post BS! Let me know what you think of this recent ruling by the Supreme Court. As the late/great Pimp C used to say, “tell me how ya feel!”
Shout out to em2wice for the lead! -Cfro
The Supreme Court today ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is admissible in court, Bloomberg reports, in a 5-4 vote along ideological lines. The court ruled that prosecutors could try an Alabama man who was found to be carrying methamphetamine and a pistol when he was accidentally arrested in 2004 due to a clerical error.
[polldaddy poll=1276391]
“In such a case, the criminal should not go free because the constable has blundered,” wrote John Roberts for the majority. In the past, the court upheld up the “exclusionary rule,” barring illegally obtained evidence, but that rule has been curtailed recently. In dissent, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the exclusionary rule was the only effective way to prevent negligent police from threatening individual freedom.
Source
|
 |
No related posts.
This is tricky. On one hand we don’t have all the information. Did the man have a license to carry a pistol or whatever it is. Also this case is pitting protection of the public against itself. Letting them admit illegally obtained evidence could very easily be abused by police but if you don’t allow it, that man could have litup a gas station. By admitting the evidence they could be potentially saving 10 people he was going to kill. But I since I like not being able to be searched for no reason, have them find something then they say sorry we weren’t allowed to search you, but that X is going in with us and you are in deep shit.