barrett@hpcnoe.UUCP (07/07/84)
In newspaper articles during the past month, I have noticed that the supreme court has been very active in decisions which seem to me to give the government ever increasing power over individuals. In particular, one recent ruling stated that illegally obtained evidence is admissable provided that the police can show that it would have been obtained eventually by legal means. What follows is yet another decision of this nature which appeared in the July 6 Wall Street Journal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized illegally by police with a search warrent that later proves invalid may be used against a defendent in a criminal trial. The 6-3 ruling creates a significant exception to the principle that illegally obtained evidence can't be used in criminal prosecutions. The principle, known as the exclusionary rule, was first applied by the Supreme Court to federal courts in 1914. In 1961, the high court extended the ban on illegal evidence to state courts. Yesterday, in an opinion written by Justice Byron White, the high court created an exception that permits the use of evidence when the police act in "reasonable reliance" on a search warrant they thought was valid. The decision, a major victory for the Regan administration and for law-enforcement agencies, came as the Supreme Court recessed for the summer. The justices concluded a term in which the majority grew increasingly conservative in criminal justice matters and cut back on some of the decisions of the 1960s that protected the rights of accused or imprisoned people. The decision yesterday dealt only with searches in which police obtain a warrant that was mistakenly or improperly issued by a magistrate or judge. That situation is far less common than instances of police acting reasonably, although illegally, without a warrant. But lawyers familiar with criminal procedures said the court's decision paves the way for an identical exception for illegal evidence seized without a warrant. "I don't really think this will be limited to cases where the police have warrants," said Yale Kamisar, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. "I think it brings the end of the exclusionary rule one step closer." The rule's defenders, facing mounting criticism, cling to the need to deter police from illegal searches that violate the Fourth Ammendment. Critics say the rule leads to the exclusion from trial of evidence that may be reliable proof of guilt, tends to set criminals free at society's expense, and has a limited deterrent effect on police misconduct. Yesterday, Justice White said the cost of the rule to society should be measured against the benifits. Solicitor General Rex Lee, who argued the case for the Regan administration, praised this adoption "of the basic cost-benifit analysis that we suggested to the court." Justice White said the benefits from excluding evidence obtained by police with a faulty warrant are "marginal or nonexistent." He said in most cases, there is no police illegality and thus nothing to deter." The error is on the part of the magistrate of judge who issued the warrant, the court said. "They have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions," Justice White said. "The threat of exculsion thus cannot be expected to significantly deter them." The high court said that evidence may still be excluded if it is later determined that police misled a magistrate of it it is proven that a magistrate simply acted as a rubber stamp for police. The court's decision reversed the ruling of a federal appeals court in San Fransisco that excluded evidence against four defendents in a cocaine-distribution case. The justices also reversed the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a similar case in which evidence was supressed in a murder trial. Justice William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and John Stevens dissented, Justice Brennan called the ruling the latest step in "the court's gradual but determined strangulation of the rule." In a related decision, the high court ruled 5-4 that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to civil deportation hearings held by the immigration and Naturalization Service. The decision was written by Justice Sandra O'Connor. The justices voted 6-2 to uphold the constitutionality of a 1983 law denying federal student loans to males who fail to register for the draft. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the high court rejected arguments that the law violates the Fifth Ammendment rights of students who request federal loans by forcing them to incriminate themselves on the application form if they havn't registered for the draft. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented. [the article then goes on to decribe cases to be argued again next term] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What do the legal people on the net think of this? I am becoming concerned that much of the safeguards built into the American legal system to protect individuals from government control are being eroded away by such decisions. It seems to me that the "cost-benifit" analysis can be used to justify any transgression of an individual's rights; the ends justify the means. What is the relevance of it to the case anyway? Dave Barrett hplabs!hp-dcd!barrett
ted@teldata.UUCP (Ted Becker) (07/11/84)
*********************** I feel the court took a step in the right direction. It is a gross miscarriage of justice to allow a criminal to go free because of some technicality in the gathering of evidence. If the police acted improperly or unlawfully while collecting evidence then punish the police for acting improperly but let the criminal conviction stand. Does it make sense to reward the wrongdoing of one person because of the wrongs of another? What value is there in having protection from abuse by the police when we are subject abuse by the outlaws? The major abridgements of individual rights do not lie in the hands of the police but in such things as building permits and zoning, business licensing and regulation, labor laws, and legislator's ignoring the interest of the people in favor of special interests.
adm@cbneb.UUCP (07/12/84)
#R:hpcnoe:-1510000100:cbnap:17000002:000:565 cbnap!tel Jul 12 08:31:00 1984 While not a "legal expert" it seems to me that the exclusionary rule only protects those who are guilty. If laws are violated in the collection of evidence then allow the evidence to be admitted but bring counter charges against the officer, magistrate, or whoever violated the law. Then all guilty parties would receive their proper and just rewards. After all, that is the point of the legal system isn't it. The current system seems more geared to protecting the guilty at expense of the victim and society. Punish the guilty! Tom at ihnp4!cbnap!tel
judy@ism780.UUCP (07/13/84)
#R:hpcnoe:-1510000100:ism780:18300007:000:890 ism780!judy Jul 10 17:37:00 1984 I think you are over-reacting. Stating that a decision that allows evidence in the case in which the judge failed (police were acting in good faith) will lead to plice being allowed to search without search warrants is a reactionary generalization. Therefore, I will only address the decision. And I support it. We have a huge crime problem in this country. And I feel that part of this is because there is no real retribution. Actually being punished for commiting a crime seems to be a matter of chance and the chances now are too low. The Supreme Court is trying to make the job of fighting crime run more smoothly. This decision is not an attempt to take away the rights of law abiding citizens. Let me ask you, do you really want those theives to get away after $10K worth of stolen goods has been found on them only because the judge erred in filling out the search warrant?
ward@hao.UUCP (07/16/84)
[] > it. We have a huge crime problem in this country. And I feel that part of > this is because there is no real retribution. Actually being punished for > commiting a crime seems to be a matter of chance If there's no real retribution, what are all those people doing in our overcrowded prisons. Maybe we should just give the police the power to kill anybody they don't like. Solve the overpopulation problem, as well as make us all alike(in one respect, anyway - we'd *ALL* love the police! (just like they do in Russia and El Salvador and other neat places like that)). -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/16/84)
> If there's no real retribution, what are all those people doing in > our overcrowded prisons. Maybe it's because the rents are so low. Actually, the line is: Then let them die now, and decrease the surplus poplulation. -Ron
chris@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Chris Johnston) (07/17/84)
I don't see any problem with admitting illegally obtained evidence as long as the offending officers are convicted. chris