I don't get the bid deal.
 

Yes. I was independent and I am officially becoming a Republican.

Absurdity
 

You don't think that the exclusionary rule has encouraged the devlopment of various procedural safeguards, practices and training methods in police departments to avoid the exclusion of relevant evidence? It has.

By so doing, it seems to me that the rule has surely reduced, and continues to reduce, the number of "illegal" searches and seizures which might otherwise occur if there was no such rule.

Every police department in the country (I think) provides some training in the current state of 4th and 5th Amendment law as it applies to the way cops have to do their jobs. Some procedures may be designed to try to circumvent the rules -- but the police are conscious of it and try to comply.

As a former prosecutor, I have to say, Spanky, that your purely theoretical argument seems to be pretty far divorced from reality. I've kept quiet so far, but you're making no darn sense.

S_A_M

[ETA: Sorry to break it to you that the issue that drove you to the Federalist Society is total bull. Don't worry, though, there is still time to change your ways.]

Exclusionary Rule
 

Leave Arnold alone. He was a true war hero. Had he and Gates not succeeded at Saratoga, the Fight for Independence would have met an early demise.

That he conspired with the enemy later on shouldn't tarnish his image.

Just ask John Kerry.

I don't get the bid deal.
 

Touched a nerve, apparently.

Thanks for calling my post moronic. Coming from you, that must have given everyone on this board a laugh.

I don't get the bid deal.
 

I'm not sure how i feel about that, to be honest. Calling a fat guy fat is wrong, except coming from another fat guy.

I don't get the bid deal.
 

Its quite an accomplishment to be so admired by people similarly delusionally out of touch isn't it? You should go post on DU, you would be a God.

Of course, here or there, you and the rest of the liberal losers will remain out of touch with the real America.

How's that draft Hillary campaign coming?

Absurdity
 

This is not some wild theory I am throwing out. If I am making no darn sense then why are we the only developed nation with the excusionary rule?

Absurdity
 

Why are we the only Western democracy with the death penalty?

Exclusionary Rule
 

I just find that there are many large organizations that can be pretty scary. Companies like Enron scare me just a much as local the local police. I don't mind holding Enron and the government to the same standard.

Rich people hire private investigators all the time to investigate the murder or abuse of people they care about. The private detectives often do a much better job because they can run roughshod over the constitutional protections. Why do private investigators from large private detective agencies get more latitude than the cops (I know what the canned answer is) but in this day in age it just seems to be ridiculous.

Absurdity
 

and why don't we use the corpses for stem cell research?

I don't get the bid deal.
 

Well, what do you do when a fat guy calls a skinny kid fat? Me, I would laugh. That's my point.

Oh, I almost forgot - weightist fuck.

Absurdity
 

We're America, damn it! We're the best. We have the best system in the world. Why do you insist that we follow the lead of a bunch of weakling foreigners with poor hygiene and bad teeth.

S_A_M

I don't get the bid deal.
 

when fringey called me a troll I ignored her.

Absurdity
 

Normally I would agree with you. But I think that if you charged the police $100,000 for every illegal search and also dock the paycheck of the cops there would not be that many illegal searches.

Absurdity
 

I am against the death penalty, except for foreign combatants and enemies, like that filthy sub-human ululating Palestinian whore.

Absurdity
 

Or use the skin for cosmetics?

I don't get the bid deal.
 

2. She is land of fu. Dead to me.

Absurdity
 

If you could ever get that passed into law, I might agree with you. (I suspect there might be other unintended consequences.) You could also do this in _addition_ to the exclusionary rule, to properly incentivize the public servants.

However, my point was simply that I really do think that the exclusionary rule reduces the number of illegal searches and seizures, and thus is beneficial. There may be other ways to get to that result -- but I can't think of others that a Court can establish and enforce.

S_A_M

Exclusionary Rule
 

How have I contradicted myself? On this topic, I asked a single question, because I was curious what your answer would be. WTF?

Absurdity
 

There is no question the exclusionary rule reduces the amount of illegal searches and seizures but the price is too high. It completely undercuts confidence in the legal system. It encourages vigilantism and cynicism.

When the system ignores truth the result is bad. If you really don't want there to be illegal searches and seizures penalize the people that are doing the illegal stuff. And the more you don't like what they are doing the stiffer you make the penatly. If a cop punches you, you can sue and get compensation. If he trespasses in your house you should get the same sort of compensation. Society should determine how heinous the crime is by the penalty dished out.

Just throwing out the evidence is too arbitrary. That solution is not really taylored to specifically punish the crime without any collateral damage.

But a court should never throw out probative evidence.

Exclusionary Rule
 

I was referring to stuff in the past. Nothing current.

Exclusionary Rule
 

Excellent post. Great analogy.

Absurdity
 

I think this is a key point. Because a court cannot order the sort of regime with financial penalties that might replace the exclusionary rule -- e.g., a rule preventing police departments from agreeing to assume damages assessed against individual officers -- the Exclusionary Rule would seem to be the only thing that a court can do to ensure that criminal defendants' rights are preserved.

bring on the fat jokes
 

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

Exclusionary Rule
 

Ty@50. how long should we give your former you? a minute?

Exclusionary Rule
 

:eek:

Exclusionary Rule
 

:doh3:

Absurdity
 

If the courts had stayed out of it and let the legislature deal with it we would have been much better off. The legislature should decide the penalties not the courts. But we will never be able to fix the problem because the Supreme Court decided that the exclusionary rule was a constitutional right. The British, with their common law right system, were lucky to not have judges divorced from reality.

[Oops -- meant to quote, not edit. I think I've restores Spanky's post to the original. Sorry. -- T.S.]

Absurdity
 

The exclusionary rule is not a "constitutional right." The right is the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule is one way of preserving this right. As a matter of policy, you may be right that, e.g., a system of financial penalties and/or incentives might, on the whole, provide a better mix of results. My point, however, is that if courts leave the question up to the legislature(s) by deferring to whatever system it/they adopt, you may find that legislatures don't wish to spend money to preserve those constitutional rights, and the rights are then effectively extinguished by legislative inaction. A constitutional right that depends on legislative action to be realized is not much of a constitutional right. Analogously, one could suggest that there is no right to compensation for takings except as a legislature sees fit to provide. Conservatives probably find it easier to imagine that the abstract promise of legislative action is not comforting when you put it in that context.

Absurdity
 

And actually, other remedies already exist. They're just not very effective, as this article points out:


"Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule .--Theoretically, there are several alternatives to the exclusionary rule. An illegal search and seizure may be criminally actionable and officers undertaking one thus subject to prosecution, but the examples when officers are criminally prosecuted for overzealous law enforcement are extremely rare. 158 A policeman who makes an illegal search and seizure is subject to internal departmental discipline which may be backed up in the few jurisdictions which have adopted them by the oversight of and participation of police review boards, but again the examples of disciplinary actions are exceedingly rare. 159 Persons who have been illegally arrested or who have had their privacy invaded will usually have a tort action available under state statutory or common law.


Moreover, police officers acting under color of state law who violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights are subject to a suit for damages and other remedies 160 under a civil rights statute in federal courts. 161 While federal officers and others acting under color of federal law are not subject jurisdictionally to this statute, the Supreme Court has recently held that a right to damages for violation of Fourth Amendment rights arises by implication out of the guarantees secured and that this right is enforceable in federal courts. 162 While a damage remedy might be made more effectual, 163 a number of legal and practical problems stand in the way. 164 Police officers have available to them the usual common-law defenses, most important of which is the claim of good faith. 165 Federal officers are entitled to qualified immunity based on an objectively reasonable belief that a warrantless search later determined to violate the Fourth Amendment was supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances. 166 And on the practical side, persons subjected to illegal arrests and searches and seizures are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic, or they are indigent and unable to bring suit. The result, therefore, is that the Court has emphasized exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence in subsequent criminal trials as the only effective enforcement method. "

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment04/06.html

Exclusionary Rule
 

http://www.jeffblogworthy.com/upload...ytheCommie.jpg

I don't get the bid deal.
 

How will you know what to have for dinner?

I don't get the bid deal.
 

I am meeting the Paigow at Bings. What do you recommend?

eta: more seriously this is a major dilemma! chinese? tex-mex? sushi? pasta? if so, what kind of sauce?!!?!? w/ salad?

Exclusionary Rule
 

Good point. Nobody should have gone to Vietnam to try to find out if there were still POWs and MIAs alive there or anywhere else. What a traitorous act!

It should be obvious that Kerry can't control what pictures the Vietnamese choose to hang in their museums. Do you know if there are pictures of Reagan or Bush in the same museum?

Absurdity
 

If it were not a constitutional right I think Legislators would have changed it long ago. In other words if the legislators had the power to overturn the courts decision on how to handle illegally seized evidence I think they would have done so. At least after the third Dirty Harry Movie.

Exclusionary Rule
 

Yes. Their pics are up on the dartboard in the curator's office.

eta: Kerry apoplogised:

http://tonkin.spymac.com/graphics/johnsays.jpg

Absurdity
 

For the record, I'm in favor of the exclusionary rule. Anyone that is not has way to much faith in people, and frankly, I can't believe that any CA Republican would have that faith.

Absurdity
 

Surely they could be made more effective. E.g., antitrust actions carry treble damages, to ensure effective deterrence.

Absurdity
 

Whether it's constitutionally required or not, the Exclusionary Rule is not a "right."

eta:

"If the legislators had the power to overturn the court's decision on how to compensate property owners, they would have gotten rid of the Takings Clause and replaced it with some statute requiring adequate compensation." Does this sound likely to you?

I don't get the bid deal.
 

Giordanos up the block or Naan & Curry one block down.