[IP] Supreme Court rules 4th Amendment violation no longer requires evidence suppression
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ethan Ackerman <eackerma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 15, 2006 3:48:01 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Supreme Court rules 4th Amendment violation no longer
requires evidence suppression
Greetings Dave,
Busy mail day :)
Observers who variously hoped (or feared) that the supreme Court's new
composition would significantly shift its direction are being proven
right.
A 5-4 divided court split along predicted partisan lines to rule that
courts can now consider illegal evidence gathered in violation of the
4th Amendment's 'knock and announce' rule.
Ruling at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html
(see also 'Top court allows evidence in illegal home entry' at
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/15/
top_court_allows_evidence_in_illegal_home_entry/
)
Putting a big chink in the so-called "exclusionary rule," the court
determined that, even though such evidence may have been gathered in
violation of the 4th Amendment, it could nonetheless be used in
courts. Both recently appointed Supreme court justices, Judges Alito
and Roberts, joined with judges Thomas, Scalia, and for parts of the
opinion, Kennedy, to get a 5 judge majority that rejected the
reasoning of previous cases upholding the rule.
The 'exclusionary rule' prohibits unlawfully gathered evidence from
being used in courts. It is applied in a VERY wide variety of
circumstances - when suspects are arrested but not given their Miranda
warnings, when confessions have been obtained by coercion or torture,
when interrogations are given after a request for an attorney has been
made, when searches or wiretaps have been performed without a warrant,
when police listen in on attorney-client conversations, or (as in this
case) where police break into homes without announcing, for example.
This ruling effectively leaves the homeowner (and the judge) without a
remedy for the illegal police actions at the trial. At most, the
homeowner might be able to later sue for money damages (if she can
prove $ damages) from the police.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/