Whatever happened to that darned old 4th amendment?

[ArabArcher35]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence

Tl;dr the supreme court has ruled that evidence obtained by illegal searches can be used to prosecute criminals.

 

[Bellum]

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."

I think that's pretty important. The law is there to protect you from government bullying, for all the good it does you.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Oh the Bill of Rights isn't valid any more, it's the enemy of freedom by hampering the fight against terrorism.

 

[ArabArcher35]

The Supreme Court has, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps not, opened a loophole which may be used by various law enforcement agencies in this country to unreasonably search anyone they want. Afterwards, they can simply claim that they "thought he had a warrant" and get off scot free, without any penalties for their actions. I'm rather concerned and I think you should be too. I can only hope that I get a chance to finish school before the government starts putting CCTV cameras in my shower.

 

[Dryvus]

That's ****ing terrible.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

I'm gonna enjoy this.

 

[arbites_augmented]

I don't live in America.

*Smug look*

 

[Bellum]

Yes, but your wearing a Christmas hat in the middle of January. 

Archer has a point. It'll still be possible to make these cases against the police, but I suppose it will be much harder.

 

[arbites_augmented]

Yes, but your you're wearing a Christmas hat in the middle of January. 

Meh, lazy.

 

[ArabArcher35]

Our police are already well-known for their dirty tactics. False positives with sniffer dogs, forced confessions, beatings, corruption, etc.

It can only get worse.

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

Look on the bright side: Global population will be reduced. Slightly.

 

[Bellum]

Yes, but your you're wearing a Christmas hat in the middle of January. 

Meh, lazy.

God dammit!

To Archer, I admittedly don't know much about the police, but I think they're better now than they have been in the past. I don't think abuse is that widespread, despite a few highly publicized incidences. It's harder to get away with that kind of **** now without a public backlash.

 

[Lhorkan]

In Belgium they've released about 20 dangerous criminals in one week due to information obtained by illegal searches not being properly classified by some clerks. I'm not sure what situation I'd rather have. <:l

 

[bugman]

I don't live in America.

*Smug look*

You are aware the Britain has had its Civill Liberties eroded thanks to anti terrorism, right?

 

[arbites_augmented]

Haven't been raided yet.

*Smug*

 

[Archonsod]

You are aware the Britain has had its Civill Liberties eroded thanks to anti terrorism, right?

The important thing over here is the police cannot force you to do anything until you're charged. You're not even obliged to provide the police with your name and address unless you're arrested.

Course, I wouldn't try carrying a backpack if you're a foreigner.

 

[pesja]

In Belgium they've released about 20 dangerous criminals in one week due to information obtained by illegal searches not being properly classified by some clerks. I'm not sure what situation I'd rather have. <:l

I'd rather have 20 guilty people not punished, than one innocent person punished.

 

[Lhorkan]

But there is the flaw in your logic. The guilty persons punish the innocent by robbing and murdering them, whereas in the situation AA described the worst thing that can happen to them is their phone sex being tapped by the government.

 

[Lost-Lamb]

Pesja: Funny that, I'd rather have 20 innocent persons shot than be punished myself.

 

[Rabid Potatoe]

LL's onto something there.