The laws should protect the innocents from frivolous infringement of their rights, not facilitate criminals to avoid their punishment. That is a correct decision.
This ruling pleases me and Im surprised Breyer went to the right on it. Im sick and tired of seeing criminals let go just because the evidence which is real and valid and incriminates them is thrown out just because someone was stopped incorrectly. Just because someone is pulled over for a broken taillight and then realizes its not broken enough to warrant a ticket, shouldnt allow someone with a warrant to run away
- - - Updated - - -
So maybe they should appear in court when they are supposed to, pay their child support and not commit crimes that will cause a warrant to be issued. What happened to personal responsibility. Nobody gets a warrant just because they are a minority so being a minority is no excuse
- - - Updated - - -
Its not to allow the government to go through your shit anytime they want to, it allows the police to conduct a search if youre pulled over and have a warrant issued. If you dont want searched, take care of your legal issues. This ruling doesnt allow police to just randomly pull over anyone they want to and search their car
That's kind of why I went on to say I'd only support this position ethically if cops were heavily punished for those illegal stops, regardless of whether they lucked into someone with a warrant or whatever in the process. Yes, being able to use the evidence means you'd have reason to break the law to get it, but if the officer is at risk of being fired over doing so, even if the evidence works out, then it's a lot more likely they'll think twice.
Especially since the veneer they often use for probable cause is already so astonishingly flimsy at times; they can pull the "I thought I heard screaming" before they kick down your door, or whatever, or "I thought I smelled weed" to justify opening your trunk.
Because police are always right 100% of the time...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...d-2015-n510196
/facepalm
once again I find the hypocrisy and double standard by many in this thread unexplainable
the very people ranting against this ruling are the same people that think your rights should be taken away for your name showing up on some list a list created by law enforcement with nothing but suspicion as reason to be on that list
so if it is wrong for law enforcement to violate you 4th amendment rights over simple suspicion how then is it ok for law enforcement to violate you 2nd amendment rights over simple suspicion. you need duo process and probable cause for both and wanting that for one and not the other makes you a hypocrite
If you dont have warrants for you arrest, you have nothing to worry about. Why is this an issue?
The part about how if you don't have such a warrant, you've got nothing to worry about.
What this ruling does, in a climate where cops aren't fired with cause for these illegal stops, is give police officers a reason to stop whoever they like, abusing their power, on the off chance that it "pays off" by finding a warrant, because there's no real offsetting negative.
With illegal searches, the "fruit of the poison tree" ruling means that you've forever tainted whatever evidence you uncover, and if it's the only conclusive evidence that can be found, you've guaranteed the criminal's freedom through that illegal search.
Without such a ruling here, there's nothing preventing officers from conducting illegal stops to "fish" for people with warrants or who can otherwise give them cause. So innocent people will end up getting harassed needlessly by officers. THAT is what innocent people have to lose.
SoooOOOooo, if you dont have a warrant, you have nothing to worry about. Thank you for quantifying it better than I could.
If youre pulled over illegally, and you have no warrants, everything will be fine. This whole bullshit argument about "POLICE DA DEVIL" is getting old. And I'm glad the SC agrees.