Posted on 05/31/2006 7:49:33 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
Certainly true - it's the only way to protect the integrity of the intent of law presently.
I've heard no probable cause cited for this search
Nor have I. My best guess is that it was a field interview / stop and frisk situation that evolved into an arrest followed by a search subsequent to a lawful apprehension. There is not enough information presented in the story to make a very educated argument... But, one point that does alarm me a little is that it appears the main point of contention is the original 'stop'. It appears to be argued that if the perps were not black they wouldn't have ever been stopped in the first place, thus everything following that is tainted. I think we have to be careful of not allowing the probable cause rule to expand to overcome the reasonable belief rule; which this case may be setting a precedent for.
I really wish we knew the whole story so we could analyze it better and decide if the police botched it or if the defense just did a good job clouding the issue with a human rights violation card...
Saying that blackness is not probable cause for a search is "liberalism"?
Do you mean "reasonable suspicion"? The idea that reasonable suspicion is sufficient for a stop and search is of quite recent vintage, so reversing that would take us back to the status quo ante.
Yes, I do. Thanks for keeping me straight.
Using the color of one's skin to excuse criminal behavior is racism at its worst.
The drug dealers were guilty as sin and should have been sanctioned. Instead another liberal judicial tyrant wants to make sure they have more victims to prey upon.
No doubt there are those that applaud ...
Who did that? This judge merely applied a well established (albeit conceptually flawed) evidentiary principle.
The judge
He merely released two more predators back into the social pool to eat more fish. Some will applaud him for it.
"Just knowing" is never going to stand up in court, and it never should.
Nope, not at all. Unless you can prove that the cop in question has a long history of accurate hunches with no innaccurate ones. Otherwise, how can you prove that his hunch was correct or he just played the odds. ie, if you question 20 people on a hunch and find the goods on one, you're really just practicing illegal search and siezure and just waiting for the one time you get lucky and come across a guilty party.
It would still be illegally obtained evidence and inadmissable. The DEA doesn't prosecute possession anyway.
Wong, the judge RIGHTLY surpressed ILLEGALLY obtained evidence. That's exactly the kind of thing we should applaud.
Ok, I'll compromise. Hang those who illegally obtain evidence as well. /sarcasm
That'll insure that illegally obtained evidence is never used anyone.
Now, while that's obviously a workable solution, it's a bit harsh. So, in the absence of that, I'm sticking with what we got, which means the cops had better insure that evidence used against a citizen has been legally obtained.
Geeze, does this mean that the police have to return 30 grams of crack cocaine and heroin plus the $1,000. to Crawford and return 2.5 ounces of powder cocaine, more than two ounces of crack cocaine and two handguns to Taft?
That was criminal profiling not racial profiling.
I don't mind if illegally obtained evidence is used. I just want the truth. Hang the criminals and deport their supporters.
Hang it up, you aren't deporting anyone.
I like the hanging part but insist on the deportation option. It served us well after the War of Independence.
BTTT
There is not enought facts in this report.
The police stated the reason for going to the hotel was to interview anyone who might have had information about a fatal shooting, so what was the pretext for a search?
I had a lecture by a ADA on pretext searchs a short time ago while serving on a jury pool and fail to see the pretext.
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.