Politics: Did the Supreme Court Just Effectively Gut the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule?

Tide1986 · Jun 22, 2016

jthomas666 said:
While the man did have an outstanding warrant, it was for a *traffic* violation.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

To your point, I'm not compelled by the majority's opinion that the cost of excluding evidence in this case outweighs the benefit of the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule with respect to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Yes, it was simply a warrant for an outstanding traffic violation. If securing payment for fines is so important to the state, why does Utah have millions of outstanding warrants largely for traffic violations? The state's own actions, or lack thereof, indicate no overriding cost in my opinion. Also with respect to the drug charge, given how ineffective punishment for possession has worked with respect to drug use, the state again has no compelling argument in this case that the cost of exclusion is too high.

NationalTitles18 · Jun 22, 2016

Tide1986 said:
To your point, I'm not compelled by the majority's opinion that the cost of excluding evidence in this case outweighs the benefit of the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule with respect to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Yes, it was simply a warrant for an outstanding traffic violation. If securing payment for fines is so important to the state, why does Utah have millions of outstanding warrants largely for traffic violations? The state's own actions, or lack thereof, indicate no overriding cost in my opinion. Also with respect to the drug charge, given how ineffective punishment for possession has worked with respect to drug use, the state again has no compelling argument in this case that the cost of exclusion is too high.

Why do you hate law enforcement?

cbi1972 · Jun 22, 2016

I would say that the cost of a state whose police are permitted to act illegally with impunity, with a wink and a nod from the judiciary, is too great for any number of criminals to get off on technicalities.

AUDub · Jun 22, 2016

Tide1986 said:
For sure. Personally, I responded negatively to the lack of objectivity that Sotomayor showed in her opinion. She apparently became emotionally wrapped up in her opinion. Kagan on the other hand was quite dispassionate in her analysis which is more compelling in my opinion.

Kagan's dissent was ver good. She has it right when she says this will incentivize bad stops.

Tide1986 · Jun 22, 2016

Wall Street Journal piece about Sotomayor's dissent:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sotomayors-ferguson-essay-1466550429

The outlier was Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went off the deep end with an extended polemic about police misconduct, events in Ferguson, Mo., and race in America. “Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. And although Mr. Strieff is white, “it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.”

The Justice is getting huzzahs on the left, but her opinion is troubling for her insistence on dragging racial politics into a case that had nothing to do with race. This dissent continues her habit of wandering far from the law or precedent to decide cases based on her personal political and policy views. Her colleagues showed more judicial wisdom.

She's proving to be unsuitable for the Supreme Court since the law doesn't seem to be her interest.

jthomas666 · Jun 22, 2016

Tide1986 said:
The last section of Sotomayor's dissent would have been better placed in a newspaper's op-ed section.

So you're saying that she channeled her inner Scalia?

crimsonaudio · Jun 22, 2016

AUDub said:
Kagan's dissent was ver good. She has it right when she says this will incentivize bad stops.

That's a great point. It's such a slippery slope, but what if they illegally stop someone wanted for murder who goes on to commit another murder?

Cases like this are why I'm glad I'll never be a SCOTUS judge. Heck, every case they hear is probably like this...

AV8N · Jun 23, 2016

For good or bad, I think this is what Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment was about - that her racial experiences would influence her interpretation of the law.
The majority had a point that if you have an outstanding warrant you are fair game. But how does an officer know you have a warrant if you're just going about your business?

Tide1986 · Jun 23, 2016

crimsonaudio said:
That's a great point. It's such a slippery slope, but what if they illegally stop someone wanted for murder who goes on to commit another murder?

Cases like this are why I'm glad I'll never be a SCOTUS judge. Heck, every case they hear is probably like this...

I would have no issue being a Supreme Court justice...easy job when you have what I believe to be the right perspective.

Search

Politics: Did the Supreme Court Just Effectively Gut the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule?

Tide1986

Suspended

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend

cbi1972

Hall of Fame

AUDub

Hall of Fame

Tide1986

Suspended

jthomas666

Hall of Fame

crimsonaudio

Administrator

AV8N

1st Team

Tide1986

Suspended

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!