I'll say it again, don't do anything wrong, and you never have to worry about any evidence being used against you.
You can say a million more times, and it won't change the fact that you're wrong.
I'll say it again, don't do anything wrong, and you never have to worry about any evidence being used against you.
Oh, I understand how the good faith exception works.
For us mere peasants, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Here's your punishment.
For the king's men, taking it upon YOURSELF to determine what THE LAW is okie dokie so long as they act in good faith. If it is later determined that the king's men acted improperly, they are still free to meet up with their buddies at the lodge at night.
Good faith implies integrity. When so many have discredited that term, it shouldn't carry as much weight as it does.
(b) Although the search in this case turned out to be unconstitu- tional under Gant, Davis concedes that the officers’ conduct was in strict compliance with then-binding Circuit law and was not culpable in any way. Under this Court’s exclusionary-rule precedents, the ac- knowledged absence of police culpability dooms Davis’s claim. Pp. 9– 11.
Oh, I understand how the good faith exception works.
For us mere peasants, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Here's your punishment.
For the king's men, taking it upon YOURSELF to determine what THE LAW is okie dokie so long as they act in good faith. If it is later determined that the king's men acted improperly, they are still free to meet up with their buddies at the lodge at night.
Good faith implies integrity. When so many have discredited that term, it shouldn't carry as much weight as it does.
"Good Faith" "Officer Safety" "Comply Now, Sue Later" "If You have nothing to hide..blah blah blah"
Its not ignorance of the law, its acting in good faith that the law/knowledge is correct. Very fine line between the 2, but there is a difference. The 2 cases in the wki article explain it very well.
“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
Again, what is so difficult to understand about the above? Are officers not capable of doing a smell test to the above? Would we rather have officers who err on the side of liberty than to simply say, I can do this because an oligarch in a robe determined what his personal opinion on the above is?
So should anything happen to these officers or their administrators?
FBI Raids Wrong Home... - Page 2 - INGunOwners
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._need_no_warrant_expletive_boom_headshot.html
A box of ammo of your choice to anyone who reads through all the court transcripts to the above cases and reports back with the number of times "good faith" is used by the lawyers of the king's men.
The same thing would go for mere peasants. Ex post facto. If you did something that was completely legal today, and they made it illegal tomorrow, they cannot punish you for it. Same concept here.
Why apply the exclusionary rule as ex post facto doctrine?
It's also used by the defendant's lawyers, who conceded the cops followed the existing law.
I'll take a box of 357 Sig please.
We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable.
Because the rights of people don't really change.
And to take your argument one step further, if it can't be used to convict later, why should they be able to use it to convict before the courts got it right?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but we can't stand for allowing the courts to determine what should be an immobile line. If you accept the premise that they can change what is good/bad from yesterday to today, then you accept the premise that they can change what's good or bad from today to tomorrow. They could just as easily reverse their decision in a future case.
We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable. Not slightly inalienable or court dependent inalienable. Non-negotiable. No taking into consideration good-faith this or imminent discovery-that.
NO search should every take place without a warrant or consent. That is the only information the courts need to consider.
Because the rights of people don't really change.
And to take your argument one step further, if it can't be used to convict later, why should they be able to use it to convict before the courts got it right?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but we can't stand for allowing the courts to determine what should be an immobile line. If you accept the premise that they can change what is good/bad from yesterday to today, then you accept the premise that they can change what's good or bad from today to tomorrow. They could just as easily reverse their decision in a future case.
We ought not to be relying on the court's opinion. Or more specifically, the courts ought not to be interpreting anything, merely laying it up for comparison against the 4th. And if it doesn't pass muster, it doesn't fly. The rights are inalienable. Not slightly inalienable or court dependent inalienable. Non-negotiable. No taking into consideration good-faith this or imminent discovery-that.
NO search should every take place without a warrant or consent. That is the only information the courts need to consider.
amen, its as clear as crystal. therefore I must say ... from my cold dead hands.“ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
Because the above is as clear as mud, we must just do whatever we feel like and then claim ignorance until some oligarchs in robes determine just what our founders meant.
except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.
So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.
Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.
except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.
So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.
Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.
Should the person have legal recourse and sue?
except that the lines are mobile. There were no cars in 1787, so the idea of an auto search would have been foreign to the founders. Who, by the way, did not have an exclusionary rule. That didn't come around until 1914 in Weeks v. US.
So if we wanted to be really faithful to original intent/original understanding, the same result would have been reached. The idea that the evidence should be excluded is itself a change from what the 4th meant when it was written. So your point proves too much. You say it shouldn't change, but argue for a standard that is changed from what it started as- no exclusionary rule.
Furthermore, the US inherited a common law scheme. That means courts decide cases and controversies. This was a conscious choice on the part of the founders.