Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Accused drug dealers get off - Judge agrees racial profiling was at play
THE NEWS-TIMES ^ | May 31, 2006 | Karen Ali

Posted on 05/31/2006 7:49:33 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough

DANBURY — In a decision Superior Court trial referee Robert Callahan "agonized long and hard over," he ruled in favor of two accused drug dealers who claimed they were stopped outside the Sheraton in Danbury in 2004 only because they were black.

In a written decision dated May 17 and received Friday by defense lawyers, Callahan said he came to his decision, which essentially guts the state's case against the men, "reluctantly" and after "soul-searching."

Lawyer James Diamond of Danbury said his client Demetere Taft, 30, of Beaver Street, is "obviously very pleased that the judge has agreed with the arguments he made."

"The judge has thrown out all the evidence against my client," Diamond said. "There's nothing left to proceed on, unless this Constitutional decision gets overturned."

"There's no basis for the police officers to search my client. There was no reason to believe he was violating the law," Diamond said.

Joseph Mirsky, the Bridgeport defense lawyer for the other client, Jamar Crawford, 29, of Waterbury, agreed there was no reason to stop the men.

"It was a very, very, very weak case for the state," Mirsky said. "So I think this decision was great. It took months and he gave it a great deal of thought."

The arrests occurred Oct. 5, 2004, when Danbury detectives went to the Sheraton on Old Ridgebury Road to look for anyone who might have had information about a fatal shooting in Waterbury that happened about 15 hours earlier.

The men were taken into custody as they left the hotel separately shortly after 3 p.m.

Crawford had more than 30 grams of crack cocaine and heroin in his luggage, according to police. He also was carrying about $1,000 in cash, police said.

Taft had 3.5 ounces of powder cocaine, more than two ounces of crack cocaine, and two handguns, according to police.

The men face multiple charges, including possession of narcotics, possession of crack cocaine and possession with intent to sell.

Diamond, who said he has never before raised the issue of race in his decade-long career as a Danbury defense lawyer, said he is not surprised by the decision.

Prosecutor David Shannon was out of the office Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. He could appeal the decision. He also could decide to drop the charges against the defendants.

Shannon's boss, Danbury State's Attorney Walter Flanagan, declined to comment.

"I'm in no position to say anything," Flanagan said.

The two detectives involved in the arrest, Joseph Norkus and James Lalli, could not be reached.

In December a Danbury police spokesman, Capt. Dan Mulvey, said he knows the two detectives who caught the two men and he doubts the arrest was based on race.

The defense lawyers aren't convinced.

"If my client was a white male walking out of the Sheraton hotel with a suitcase in his hands, he never would have been stopped and searched," Diamond said.

Diamond said he had not yet heard whether Shannon plans to appeal the decision from Callahan, who was the state's Supreme Court chief justice before becoming a trial referee after retiring in 1999.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: 4a; badjudges; billofrights; blackrobedthugs; clown; constitutionlist; danbury; discrimination; doofus; drugs; drugskilledbelushi; fool; guessworkinblackrobe; idiot; judicialactivism; libertarians; searchseizure; shiiteforbrains; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last
Here's a classic Fourth Amendment case, I think. Also a precedent for race-based decision-making for the defense lawyer, according to the article.

Come hence, libertarians.

1 posted on 05/31/2006 7:49:35 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

dog-bites-tail.


2 posted on 05/31/2006 7:52:13 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (whatever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Would love to know what the probable cause was in this case...


3 posted on 05/31/2006 7:55:18 AM PDT by Army MP Retired (There Will Be Many False Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Rather ironic that they managed to hit major pay dirt.


4 posted on 05/31/2006 7:56:20 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Here is a perfect example of where guilt or innocence dont mean Jack Sheit.

Turn them boys loose they is just a couple of poor old black boys being caught because they was black. Sure they was dealing dope, but what difference does that make?

I still say when caught with drugs make the perp eat what they have on them.


5 posted on 05/31/2006 7:59:15 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired

Apparently none, so the case was tossed.


6 posted on 05/31/2006 7:59:42 AM PDT by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

I don't know anything about this case or judge..but I wouldn't want to be stopped simply because I was a white guy in a black neighborhood. Unless a cop can show good cause to stop someone, as hard as it is, they should be let go..watched like a hawk for the NEXT time to be sure but no one should be stopped without just cause IMHO.


7 posted on 05/31/2006 8:06:46 AM PDT by conservativehusker (GO BIG RED!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
quote "If my client was a white male walking out of the Sheraton hotel with a suitcase in his hands, he never would have been stopped and searched"

BS ! If some white guys covered in tattoo's wearing gang style clothes with their pants hanging down to their knees, gold chains around their necks and pagers on their hips came out of the hotel carrying bags while looking suspicious and guilty while sweating profusely and constantly sniffing... they sure as heck would of been stopped and searched!
8 posted on 05/31/2006 8:09:01 AM PDT by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
Aren't law enforcement professionals trained to recognize suspicious activity?
I don't have a criminal mind but I imagine that if I had something illegal in my possession I might act abit more cautious around others. If the perps didn't have drugs with them they wouldn't have been arrested.
Seems the police used their training. If the perps were carrying suitcase bombs these professionals would be receiving awards for their police work
9 posted on 05/31/2006 8:10:42 AM PDT by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough


Meanwhile racial profiling in the form of Affirmative Action will continue and be expanded...


10 posted on 05/31/2006 8:30:09 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativehusker

"...but I wouldn't want to be stopped simply because I was a white guy in a black neighborhood. Unless a cop can show good cause to stop someone,..."

That would make you suspicious in my book. You likely have no legitimate business there.


11 posted on 05/31/2006 8:39:06 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

I'd be suspicious of anybody driving on Beaver Street.


12 posted on 05/31/2006 8:41:38 AM PDT by toddlintown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

For your ping list...


13 posted on 05/31/2006 8:48:48 AM PDT by CT-Freeper (Said the perpetually dejected Mets fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: bk1000

"...but I wouldn't want to be stopped simply because I was a white guy in a black neighborhood. Unless a cop can show good cause to stop someone,..."

That would make you suspicious in my book. You likely have no legitimate business there.

***
BUT THIS IS AMERICA AND HE IS FREE, AS AM I AS A BLACK WOMAN, TO BE IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD AT ANY TIME - white, black, asian, latino, mixed, etc. It gives no cop the right to stop and search. It does not equal probable cause.


15 posted on 05/31/2006 8:58:45 AM PDT by Ganymede
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
"If my client was a white male walking out of the Sheraton hotel with a suitcase in his hands, he never would have been stopped and searched," Diamond said.

I am a WHITE MALE and I HAVE BEEN stopped and searched at an airport. This is a simple racist lie by this person named Diamond and it makes me sick!

This is yet another example of how wrong it is to dismiss truthful evidence. I oppose deleting evidence because of how it was gained. If something was done improperly then punish those that did such a thing after a trial shows that they indeed gained the evidence in some wrongful way. Noon but a criminal is served when truthful evidence is kept from a jury. Hiding truth is the undoing for the rule of law. We should address this issue by any means needed to stop the hiding of truthful evidence.
16 posted on 05/31/2006 9:04:24 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper

Thank you! I'll ping the CT list now...


17 posted on 05/31/2006 9:04:59 AM PDT by nutmeg ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; scoopscandal; 2Trievers; LoneGOPinCT; Rodney King; sorrisi; MrSparkys; monafelice; ...

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

18 posted on 05/31/2006 9:05:27 AM PDT by nutmeg ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - Hillary Clinton 6/28/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ganymede
"white, black, asian, latino, mixed, etc. It gives no cop the right to stop and search. It does not equal probable cause."

Sure it does! The cop is looking for things out of place. A black guy in a white neighborhood or a white guy in a black neighborhood looks out of place. Neither has any likely legitimate business there. Neither likely wandered there by mistake. Chances are good that in either case someone is up to something. But then, I want to search muslim-looking people trying to board airplanes. Yes, you have the 'right' to be in any neighborhood, but that 'right' won't stop me from getting beaten up just for being a white guy in a black neighbohood and it won't prevent the cops from scrutinizing black people wandering through white neighborhoods. In a mixed neighborhood, things are different.There are rights and then there are responsibilities. And there is common sense as well. PC seldom allows the application of the latter, however.
19 posted on 05/31/2006 9:13:52 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression; LurkedLongEnough
I oppose deleting evidence because of how it was gained. If something was done improperly then punish those that did such a thing after a trial shows that they indeed gained the evidence in some wrongful way.

The problem here, as I see it, is this: the police had no reason to detain these men in the first place. They were investigating a wholly separate crime---they weren't patrolling the area on the lookout for drug dealers. They had no probable cause to detain these men on suspicion of the crime they were investigating, so that detention was unjustified. Anything the police discovered as a result of that detention would never have been known or realized had not that detention taken place, and since that detention was unjustified, it's as if the evidence against them never existed.

And this is the way it should be. Otherwise, the police would have carte blanche to stop anyone, for any reason, absent suspicion, and search them. That notion should be completely abhorrent to freedom-loving people.


20 posted on 05/31/2006 9:16:06 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
Now, I don't know if this is exactly how it went down, but imagine it happened like this...

Person number one was walking out of the hotel with a suitcase in hand. Cops, seeing someone who was the same race as someone suspected in a shooting that happened in another city 15 hours earlier and 20 miles away, decides he will stop the person for questioning. During the stop, the drugs are found. Was this search/seizure justified?

Shortly thereafter, another black male, carrying a similar suitcase, was also seen coming out of the same hotel. Presumably, the drugs on the first man had already been found. Possibly, the police would have been justified in searching this man since they had already found the drugs on the first. However, since the search of the first man was probably unjustified, they would not under ordinary circumstances have had any reason to stop/search the second.

21 posted on 05/31/2006 9:17:07 AM PDT by CT-Freeper (Said the perpetually dejected Mets fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired
Would love to know what the probable cause was in this case...

Sometimes you "just know." It can't be explained and it can't be taught.

It's like the BS meter on FR, sometimes you "just know."

And some felons have as much chance getting by a veteran cop as sunrise does getting by a rooster.

22 posted on 05/31/2006 9:17:26 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
Sure it does! The cop is looking for things out of place. A black guy in a white neighborhood or a white guy in a black neighborhood looks out of place. Neither has any likely legitimate business there.

A white guy in a black neighborhood or a black guy in a white neighborhood . . . or an asian guy in a white neighborhood, or a white guy in an asian neighborhood . . . constitutes probable cause, i.e., "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)?"

You sure about that, or are you just being bombastic?


23 posted on 05/31/2006 9:21:22 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number
The fact that the argument is posed that they had no cause to stop these fellas does not remove the fact that they had drugs on their person.

Cops have to work on hunches in order to do the job they are tasked to do and they should be allowed to do so. I agree they should be punished if they do a search and they find nothing, that would accomplish making them sure that a search is warranted.

I am just saying that hiding truthful evidence cannot be a positive action when its goal is to protect the innocent. Indeed these guys were far from it......until evidence was hiden that is.

and since that detention was unjustified, it's as if the evidence against them never existed.

It is the "as if" part I take issue with. Please don't get me wrong I do not seek to remove the protection from improper searches. I simply offer that there are better ways to insure that and more proper punishments for those that will search improperly.

your last paragraph assumes there is only one way to insure rights are protected. I disagree with that point entriely. There are more ways to punish the guilty cops than simply allowing the guilty perps to walk free into society.

Punishment for improper searches is due but know this, this was not an improper search and the evidence shows that quite clearly. If you care about the truth that is.

Truth as I pose it in this example is that these fellas were cold busted with drugs and they should in no way walk away scott free. Do you really think they should?
24 posted on 05/31/2006 9:25:54 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper

Cops are tasked with finding law breakers. To attain that goal they have to be allowed to look. Yes, there should be punishments when they go over the line of reasonable search but when they find something like what these guys found I offer to you that the evidence shows the search was warranted.

Even if it was not by some argument made that does not change the FACT that these fellas were indeed caught breaking the law. Now the argument is that the cops broke the law right? So they have to be punished right? Well, I agree they should be but I disagree with the idea that punishing the cops while allowing the criminals to go free is proper.

If the cops are to be punished for a criminal act then why not those clearly found with evidence proving their guilt as well?

Many times I am read as if I only seek to punish the criminal while giving the cops a complete and unquestionable right of way. That is not even close to the position I take. I am 100% for enforcment of the law towards all law breakers. Letting the guilty go free in this way while punishing those that are trying to root out criminals seems awfully backwards to me.

In a nutshell all law breakers should see punishment for theiur actions....equally. It is not justice when the guilty go free and the cops alone attain punishment for actions taken.


25 posted on 05/31/2006 9:31:41 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CT-Freeper
Cops, seeing someone who was the same race as someone suspected in a shooting that happened in another city 15 hours earlier and 20 miles away, decides he will stop the person for questioning. During the stop, the drugs are found. Was this search/seizure justified?

Hmmm... well, a 'stop' would give the police inherent privilege of a frisk for the sole intent of seeking weapons in order to protect themselves during the stop. Searching the suitcase would be pushing that privilege in my estimation. Unless, during the frisk - drugs were discovered on the perp... that would lead to probable cause to search his suitcase, but; since the perp was under the officer's control at that point there was no danger of evidence being destroyed and a warrant would have been a better approach.

Now, the perp with the guns... that's a whole new ball of wax. Assuming at least one of the weapons was on his person - that charge, at least, should have stuck.

This all boils down to fruit of the poison tree ... basically, everything that happens after a mistake that reasonably would not have happened without the mistake is not admissible. The officers apparently botched this one pretty good, unfortunately. Hopefully more information will come out that illuminates the initial probable cause so we can better understand why this happened...

26 posted on 05/31/2006 9:32:03 AM PDT by Army MP Retired (There Will Be Many False Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number
Like I said, they likely have no legitimate business there.
27 posted on 05/31/2006 9:34:14 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
Sometimes you "just know." It can't be explained and it can't be taught.

It's like the BS meter on FR, sometimes you "just know."

Granted. But... "your Honor, I just had a gut feeling based on my well refined senses from 22 years of law enforcement experience" won't hold much water in our legal system. Or should I say, at least it's not supposed to. Your point is well taken though.

28 posted on 05/31/2006 9:38:28 AM PDT by Army MP Retired (There Will Be Many False Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
It is the "as if" part I take issue with. Please don't get me wrong I do not seek to remove the protection from improper searches. I simply offer that there are better ways to insure that and more proper punishments for those that will search improperly.

A cop can stop and search anyone he or she wants to based on reasonable suspicion, that is, a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts, that a person is about to commit, is commiting, or has committed a crime. Call it a hunch that you could explain to a reasonable person, if you will.

Giving police the power to search based on a hunch alone would be extremely dangerous. Since a hunch is not based on a reasonable belief, or on articulable facts, a hunch could be anything you wanted to be. In a perfect world a hunch would be justified, but in the real world, a justified, unarticulable hunch is no different from a race-based hunch or a prejudice-based hunch or simply an asshole-based hunch.


29 posted on 05/31/2006 9:39:14 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bk1000
Like I said, they likely have no legitimate business there.

Doesn't even come close to the standard required to stop and search someone.

30 posted on 05/31/2006 9:40:45 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired

Army, lets say they did botch it. Does the cops botching it equate to these guys being innocent rather than guilty?

I would offer to you that it does not. If the cops bothced it and punishment is due, hey man, I am all for it. They should not be above the law and indeed should be held to account.

Put them in jail. Remove them from the policing authority. Fine them. A whole host of punishments are out there to deal with a cop that does something wrong. We should not be hiding truthful evidence of guilt in order for the guilty to go free. We should not do that to allow cops to go free and we should not do that to allow a civilian to go free.

How can one expect a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) to come to any kind of informed decision when they are clearly disallowed all known information? I pose that all available truth should be presented to the jury in order that they make the best decision that anyone can possibly expect them to make.

Example: Some claim the Invasion to remove Saddam was unlawful. Should all evidence against him be hidden away like it never existed? All the translations of captured documents be ignored? Surely noone will agree that they should be.

If cops know they are done being a cop if they search unreasonably then they will not do so. Simply hiding evidence in one case will not disallow them from continuing to be a cop in other cases.

Our law may have worked in the past but today it only works to see the guilty go free and we should adjust it so that stops happening.


31 posted on 05/31/2006 9:41:15 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
and since that detention was unjustified, it's as if the evidence against them never existed.

Well, the good news is that at least the drugs are off the street... even if the search and seizure was tainted.

32 posted on 05/31/2006 9:41:25 AM PDT by Army MP Retired (There Will Be Many False Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired
Granted. But... "your Honor, I just had a gut feeling based on my well refined senses from 22 years of law enforcement experience" won't hold much water in our legal system. Or should I say, at least it's not supposed to. Your point is well taken though.

Yep. The evidence used to substantiate the gut feelings. Isn't it wonderful that evidence doesn't mean anything anymore?

Wonder if the judge returned the drugs to the two "victims" of profiling since it was obviously fruit of the poisoned tree.

33 posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:10 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired

Doesn't that pretty much say that 22 years of experience is worthless? I would offer that reality should be recognized that when a hunch turns out to be on the money it is time to congratulate for a job well done rather than hide away the truth that was gained.


34 posted on 05/31/2006 9:43:08 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number

If they are held accountable to punishment when their hunch doesn't turn out the way they thought it would what is the danger?

I in no way call for cops to be immune or for them to have a free lunch when it comes to searches performed. Indeed they should be held accountable for the actions they take.

Cops have a job to do and it is silly to say hunches cannot play any role whatsoever. That is a hamstringing effort to stop them from succeeding in the task they are there to perform.


35 posted on 05/31/2006 9:46:08 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired

The bad news to go along with that good news is that the ones with the drugs were just taught that they can get out of punishment even when they are captured red handed.

That is the worst message that can be sent when it comes to the rule of law and it is one of the main reasons for the levels of crime we have in this nation today.(IMHO)


36 posted on 05/31/2006 9:47:36 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number
A cop can stop and search anyone he or she wants to based on reasonable suspicion, that is, a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts, that a person is about to commit, is committing, or has committed a crime. Call it a hunch that you could explain to a reasonable person, if you will.

May be just semantics here, but this is more appropriately explained as 'stop and frisk.' Frisk is the least intrusive 'search' and the intent is to secure weapons to protect the officer's safety - it is not intended to arbitrarily seek evidence of a crime. It generally does not involve going into pockets or carried items that can be isolated from the person being stopped. Generically, this is a 'pat down' because that's basically all that is supposed to happen... those places where a weapon could be concealed are patted and if something the could be a weapon is felt - that particular spot is further investigated.

37 posted on 05/31/2006 9:50:58 AM PDT by Army MP Retired (There Will Be Many False Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bk1000

So I should have been arrested when I lived in a Black neighborhood? Or when I am driving through one? Your viewpoint is goofy at best.


38 posted on 05/31/2006 9:52:48 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Don't know all of the facts of the case, but it seems like the correct decision if they didn't otherwise establish PC.


39 posted on 05/31/2006 9:54:18 AM PDT by somniferum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
If they are held accountable to punishment when their hunch doesn't turn out the way they thought it would what is the danger?

If that were the case, do you think the cop would risk his career and his neck to search on a hunch? Or do you think he might be damn sure of his hunch first, and be able to explain it if questioned about it . . . i.e., "reasonable suspicion"?

40 posted on 05/31/2006 9:55:39 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired
May be just semantics here, but this is more appropriately explained as 'stop and frisk.'

That is what I meant, and I do defer to your expertise in the matter as a retired MP.

41 posted on 05/31/2006 9:56:37 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: somniferum
PC

I would say Political correctness has already been established and needs to be addressed for what it is. ;)
42 posted on 05/31/2006 10:06:02 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number
If that were the case, do you think the cop would risk his career and his neck to search on a hunch?

That is the point of it you see. For them to rely heavily on a hunch and they know they risk their career, they will indeed think hard before they make that decision.

If there is a reason to litigate why a search took place, so be it, litigate. I am saying do it seperately from the evidence that was gained. Why a search was done does not remove the evidence found found nor should litigation about a search remove the truthfulness of that evidence found.
43 posted on 05/31/2006 10:09:08 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
44 posted on 05/31/2006 10:11:52 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bk1000

is post number 11 and 19 intentional hyperbolic sarcasm? Or are you really serious about what you just typedin those 2 posts?


45 posted on 05/31/2006 10:14:20 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
lets say they did botch it. Does the cops botching it equate to these guys being innocent rather than guilty?

Certainly not. They are guilty as sin IMHO.

Our law may have worked in the past but today it only works to see the guilty go free and we should adjust it so that stops happening.

The 4th Amendment didn't address how to handle illegally obtained evidence - the supreme court did. Until that time, illegally obtained evidence was admissible. It still is under some circumstances.

Maybe it's time to go back to the common law. I think you're right - if an officer violates a person's rights he should be held accountable, but evidence of crime obtained in the process should not be summarily disposed of.

46 posted on 05/31/2006 10:17:15 AM PDT by Army MP Retired (There Will Be Many False Prophets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Army MP Retired

I agree it was SCOTUS that made this tarbaby. I feel Congress should excercise its rightful authority and fix the problem. After all it is their job to form the law.

I think the fourth didn't handle the what to do with it part because I think the founders were honorable men that believed in truth. I think they meant it to be understood that courtroom evidence was supposed to be about presenting truth so that proper justice may be administered.

I would offer that SCOTUS was trying to protect our 4th when they made this ruling and indeed they rule in ways that do. I would just like to see this nation get back to basics and common sense. When something was intended for good but begets bad, it is time to act not time to rest on our laurels. Congress could and should deal with this so it can be done with.


47 posted on 05/31/2006 10:37:43 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
That is the point of it you see. For them to rely heavily on a hunch and they know they risk their career, they will indeed think hard before they make that decision.

You understand, of course, you're advocating a system where the presumption is of guilt, not innocence, and that's wholly incompatible with the American system of jurisprudence . . .

48 posted on 05/31/2006 11:35:46 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
I think the fourth didn't handle the what to do with it part because I think the founders were honorable men that believed in truth.

. . . except for those Founding Fathers who made their fortunes by smuggling . . .

49 posted on 05/31/2006 11:38:12 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 54-46 Was My Number
And this is the way it should be. Otherwise, the police would have carte blanche to stop anyone, for any reason, absent suspicion, and search them. That notion should be completely abhorrent to freedom-loving people.

Yup. Too bad there are not more freedom-loving people around. 

50 posted on 05/31/2006 11:59:39 AM PDT by zeugma (Come to the Dark Side... We have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson