Interesting People mailing list archives
Supreme Court rules 4th Amendment violation no longer requires evidence suppression
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:53:24 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma () u washington edu> Date: June 15, 2006 3:48:01 PM EDT To: David Farber <dave () farber net>Subject: Supreme Court rules 4th Amendment violation no longer requires evidence suppression
Greetings Dave, Busy mail day :) Observers who variously hoped (or feared) that the supreme Court's new composition would significantly shift its direction are being proven right. A 5-4 divided court split along predicted partisan lines to rule that courts can now consider illegal evidence gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment's 'knock and announce' rule. Ruling at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html (see also 'Top court allows evidence in illegal home entry' athttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/15/ top_court_allows_evidence_in_illegal_home_entry/
) Putting a big chink in the so-called "exclusionary rule," the court determined that, even though such evidence may have been gathered in violation of the 4th Amendment, it could nonetheless be used in courts. Both recently appointed Supreme court justices, Judges Alito and Roberts, joined with judges Thomas, Scalia, and for parts of the opinion, Kennedy, to get a 5 judge majority that rejected the reasoning of previous cases upholding the rule. The 'exclusionary rule' prohibits unlawfully gathered evidence from being used in courts. It is applied in a VERY wide variety of circumstances - when suspects are arrested but not given their Miranda warnings, when confessions have been obtained by coercion or torture, when interrogations are given after a request for an attorney has been made, when searches or wiretaps have been performed without a warrant, when police listen in on attorney-client conversations, or (as in this case) where police break into homes without announcing, for example. This ruling effectively leaves the homeowner (and the judge) without a remedy for the illegal police actions at the trial. At most, the homeowner might be able to later sue for money damages (if she can prove $ damages) from the police. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Supreme Court rules 4th Amendment violation no longer requires evidence suppression David Farber (Jun 15)