U$A Court Decisions

[phrankinsteyn]

The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in their infinite wisdom) has ruled that law enforcement can conduct searches and seizures, even when an arrest violated state law and that your computer hard drive can be searched.

What happened to "fruit of the poisonous tree ruling/doctrine and the 4th amendment: Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"? :confused:

I know this is what I joined for.........:rolleyes:

One more reason for obeying all traffic laws and PGP, external hard drive/server(s)?

Read 'em and weep:

Searches ruling: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24277803/

Hard drive ruling: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20080423/tc_nf/59439

[neetje]

This is exactly the reason I keep my laptop free of any illegal stuff. Everything illegal I have I keep encrypted on an external hard drive. When I'm not home, it goes into a fire safe.

[megalomania]

I don't think you should share that bit of knowledge with the world+dog, neetje :rolleyes:

I think you need to qualify these rulings a bit more before getting too concerned. First, the ruling that allows to search and seize applies to when you get busted for something else and the cops are already there. While the cops would be pushing this if they started to search through your home when they are there to serve a "complaint" (unless you have a crack lab in plain sight), there have never been strong protections for automobiles. If you refuse a search they just hold you there and get a warrant anyway.

Does this ruling now mean cops must arrest and expel illegal aliens for traffic violations? The fedgov can't have it both ways, they want to search and seize, but they only want to apply the law to people and groups they don't like. We will see how the illegal community, strangely politically empowered for not being citizens, will stand for this. I would say a good legal argument to fight this law is to point out cops are only selectively enforcing it.

As for the hard drive searching, that applies to people coming in from foreign countries at the airport. People shouldn't be coming in from other countries. There is no reason to leave the US, and we have enough ragheads already. Everyone knows by now they will do everything up to an including stick a finger up your ass when you fly in from ragheadastan, so one more layer of your dignity stripped away is not going to make a difference.

I wonder how much effort they would spend if you had whole drive encryption? They might not let you bring the drive into the country. I say people should use encryption as a matter of habit for everything. That's all you need is some airport screener monkey pawing through your confidential business plans, research, investment data, etc. How hard would it be to bribe one of those fools to "inspect" the files of a rival company executive and copy the earnings forecasts? What if they are reading privileged medical information, considering too many doctors today are foreigners?

You should not expect to have any rights in the US if A) you are not quite in the US yet, and B) you are a damn foreigner.

[phrankinsteyn]

The way I understand it, the first ruling, is that if the police make an illegal arrest/vehicle stop and during that illegal arrest/stop they search you or your vehicle and find "contraband" and then you are arrested for this contraband/evidence it is now admissible in court. In the past if an arrest was "illegal", any evidence found would fall under the Exclusionary Rule and be inadmissible.

The second ruling, for American citizens, reentering the country, allows the government to examine your laptop. This, in my opinion, violates the 4th amendment. Your laptop/hardrive, even though it is digital, are your "papers".

I agree concerning leaving/entering the country, for noncitizens, but I do not agree with these rulings for American citizens. I believe these are very dangerous decisions to what freedoms we have left, and are opening the door for more totalitarian laws. They started with gun and chemical laws like this too, (can I put those in the same sentence? :) ) a little at a time.

I believe we are stuck, for a while, with the first decision as this was a Supreme Court ruling (until the court changes :rolleyes:). On the other ruling (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) we may have a chance on an appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

There is what is known as a "good faith" element to this discussion in that there needs to be proven that the misguided stop & search was done in good faith and that exclusionary rulings would not have occurred except for an outside idiosyncrasy. However I forgot what this is called from a legal standpoint (I'm not a lawyer obviously).
Else you'd have cops running heather & yon trying to find some meth on their favourite shit-heel.

Evidence introduced is often subjected to this intellectual test. Planting some crap on a subject is not as easy as it once was. This is due now to the tiny checks and balences which many people take for granted.

[megalomania]

Like the article said, encrypting your drive is very easy. This makes the legal issue moot, but I do very much agree the principle of the matter is what is at stake. A computer file is no threat to anyone, despite what propaganda the fedgov is feeding us. Naturally they went right for the "child porn" angle, which is the standard emotional appeal they use to convince the sheeple why the fedgov needs to poke around in your computer. Oh won't anyone think of the children... bullshit. Make children illegal then and be done with it.

The story never really stated if this searching was being done to American citizens. I inferred this was for foreigners only, but such things have a way of snowballing doen the slippery slope. Once we get used to the idea of "them" being searched, then there will be less complaints when it is "us" being searched.

Luck is the greatest asset law enforcement has. They rely on the stupidity and ignorance of criminals (and innocent people) to get arrests. I am perfectly happy with some negro crack head getting busted for possession when he gets pulled over for blaring rapcrap at 2AM.

I guess the moral of this argument is don't expect to have the dead bodies and rocket launchers in your trunk excluded just because you were only pulled over for a burned out taillight. Spending 15 minutes on basic automotive maintenance can save you 15 years in prison :)

Where does the fedgov go from here? They may be crossing the line if the cops starting going through every file on your laptop when they pull you over for a traffic violation.

[Bugger]

(cut) You should not expect to have any rights in the US if A) you are not quite in the US yet, and B) you are a damn foreigner.
In that case, foreigners should not contemplate visiting the U$A at all, for any reason, at least until things have calmed down after the revolution and régime change (which will probably occur around 2009-2010). Too bad if it severely damages the U$ tourist industry, and costs some airline and hotel staff their jobs.

[phrankinsteyn]

My understanding of the good faith doctrine usually pertains to warrants. That is if a law enforcement officer arrests someone on a warrant, even if the warrant was invalid, the person who swore out warrant lied or some technicality, the officer would not be held responsible for an illegal arrest or search. Any contraband found during the search would then be admissible. There is also a plain view doctrine, which states that any contraband in "Plain View" does not require a warrant. Example: police enter a house with consent of occupant/owner to search for stolen property, and they find in "Plain View" (out in the open, not hidden) they may seize it if the believe (acting in good faith) it is contraband/illegal.

Was the arrest made on good faith by the police? Did he/she have a warrant? Did the police officer believe he/she could arrest someone for this traffic violation? If he/she did, that would be good faith, but I do not believe that is what this ruling is about. Wasn't he/she taught in college (criminal justice classes) or the law enforcement academy what he could or could not arrest/take someone into custody for? Did he/she ignore what was taught and did it anyway? Was this a "pretextual traffice stop"?

Now I will digress some......:) If you are dealing with a crooked cop, you don't stand a chance. Evidence does not have to be planted. He/she does not have to "put it" in your pocket or car. A crooked cop could just arrest you and say you had the contraband on you. He/she may have gotten the contraband from someone else earlier. He/she may use that contraband against you, even though it is not yours, if they want to provide supporting evidence. It may be stored in their police locker or a rented locker or..., and after the arrest is made, then retrieve the contraband /illegal drugs/weapons/chemicals you are being charged with. Or they could just arrest, charge and then wait for your pretrial/trial and then say they "lost it or it was accidentally destroyed" (evidence/contraband).

When I was a kid, I grew up in a major city, the police carried (allegedly :)) throw away guns/knives. In case you were shot, intentionally or unintentionally, they could plant it on you after you were dead to cover themselves. I don't believe times have changed that much. They just have to figure out a different way to do things now. I believe most cops play by the book. But when the book gives them more options, they will use them. And then when they are given all the options, carte blanche, there will be no need for crooked cops to exist, because the government will be able to arrest you for anything, and if they are wrong (but they won't be will they? 2+2=?), Oh well (Orwell) .................

I believe this ruling was not passed to increase our freedoms. Just the opposite,
it was passed for the benefit of government agents. Why are this/these ruling(s) coming down now and not years ago? We are told we are "fighting for freedom", but I had more freedom in the past.

It is a shame the good faith doctrine does not apply to citizens/civilians.:confused:

I guess we will have to wait to see how this ruling(s) play out.

[megalomania]

Oh these laws certainly have nothing to do with our rights and freedoms. These laws are solely for the purpose of increasing the powers of the fedgov in the war of terror. This is another cut in the "death by a thousand cuts" to our freedom. These laws make sense from a frame of reference that does not include any of the other freedom stripping laws, as these laws are intended to be because that's how they slip under the radar.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

....It may be stored in their police locker or a rented locker or..., and after the arrest is made, then retrieve the contraband /illegal drugs/weapons/chemicals you are being charged with. Or they could just arrest, charge and then wait for your pretrial/trial and then say they "lost it or it was accidentally destroyed" (evidence/contraband)......
The cop can plant some wonderful shit but it's the State's Attorney that puts you in the penitentiary. It's the State's Attorney that determines what happens to you. This takes place in both pre-lim, trial, & appeal.

Cops make arrests. Prosecutors are the fellows who put you down. If the "evidence" is lost - they have lost. Conviction is NOT an easy task; ask people who have been down and people who have walked on various cases.

Now, if one is so fucking stupid as to talk without an attorney present when you HAVE committed a crime; you may make the job easier. But putting someone down who has really committed a crime is NOT a walk in the park. This is due to something called "Due Process". If you are being tried by Jury for a Felony - you need to reach a state wherein your guilt is outline beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If you really think that through; it's not so damn easy. If the Property Room "looses" anything....that case is gone. - PERIOD. The dominoes must line up for them all to fall down in a little row.

Many folks don't believe it but jury's are generally picked by those who are determined to get the type of people who would pale at convicting an innocent man. Jury selection is a High Art. Judge's also don't like convicting ANYONE who may achieve an Overturning of His Honor's ruling. That's whats called a public kick in the crotch.

[phrankinsteyn]

The cop can plant some wonderful shit but it's the State's Attorney that puts you in the penitentiary. It's the State's Attorney that determines what happens to you. This takes place in both pre-lim, trial, & appeal.

Cops make arrests. Prosecutors are the fellows who put you down. If the "evidence" is lost - they have lost. Conviction is NOT an easy task; ask people who have been down and people who have walked on various cases.



Even if the jury finds you not guilty or the case is dismissed, you still are in the county jail awaiting your "day in court", unless you can afford bond, until your preliminary hearing or trial. You then must find a lawyer, unless you are destitute, then one will be appointed. All these things cost you money and or your freedom. In my opinion, you have still lost. What if it takes a year to go to trial and you cannot afford bail? You have spent a year in jail for something you did not do or were framed for; and then there is the mental/emotional distress to you and your family.

I do not have a lot of confidence in the court system (jury or bench trial). Innocent people have been convicted of a crime(s) they did not do by a jury/judge (bench trial) who found them guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt". It is not the state attorney's that put you in prison, they "just" present the state's side of the story; it is the jury of our/your peers that find you guilty and the judge (unless it is a bench trial then he also determines "beyond a reasonable doubt") sentences you.

Jury's in the state I live in, are picked both by the state and the defense. Both sides question and pick potential jurors and "seat" the ones they like. Both attorney's have a limited number of strikes for jurors to use against jurors they do not like/want. If your attorney runs out of strikes before jury selection is over, oh well...........

Maybe there will be at least one on the jury who understands "Jury Nullification," pertaining to these new rulings that the courts just handed down.

We will have to wait and see about jurors who pale at convicting an innocent man(?), when/if one of our members (of this forum) goes on trial in the good ole U$A.

[TreverSlyFox]

As a retired LEO I can give you one important piece of advice:

When questioned by an LEO .... KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!

You have no idea how many cases I made because the defendant opened his mouth. No he didn't confess to a crime, he just gave me some piece of information I DIDN'T HAVE and possibly didn't even think of. And with that piece of information I now had something to work with, something I can check. That one piece of information may lead me to another piece, and another piece. Pretty soon I have all the pieces to fit together then all I had to do was sort it out an apply for a warrant.

That one piece could be nothing more than a name. Like the answer to the question at a traffic stop:

Where you coming from?

My buddies house over on 5th Street.

What's your buddies name?

John Doe.

Now maybe I don't know you, but I know John Doe and word on the street is he's dealing crack. You just got added to my list of John Doe's possible customers or maybe your one of his dealers. Either way you just gave me a piece of information I didn't have 10 seconds ago. And I have all day, every day to figure out your connection to John Doe because that's what they PAY me to do. See how easy it is.

[Charles Owlen Picket]

...... You then must find a lawyer, unless you are destitute, then one will be appointed. All these things cost you money and or your freedom. In my opinion, you have still lost. What if it takes a year to go to trial and you cannot afford bail? You have spent a year in jail for something you did not do or were framed for; and then there is the mental/emotional distress to you and your family.....


This is a VERY significant issue and from that perspective not only do I clearly understand your position but agree very deeply. However, let me explain what I mean a bit further.

I have no formal legal education but have been around the block. I would add however there is some recourse for this scenario...if you don't have a Public Pretender that is just a shit-school plea bargainer. [I'm sure someone who is in Law School will walk me through it if I describe it incorrectly....] You are held without bond if your threat to the community at large is greater than the collective evidence presented at pre-lim. You are allotted bond within your ability to provide it. You also have the right to a hearing within a certan period of time and that is not more than a few days. That hearing will have the Government or State's evidence presented & your plea.

Thus a completely homeless guy may not walk on a serious matter IF that evidence exists. ....Not circumstantial stuff, however. But that same homeless guy may also get O.R. more easily than the solid citizen-homeowner! The judge who makes bond ("bail") hears every bit of prosecution evidence in Chambers (Pro-Tem) well before making ANY decision. If he is convinced that evidence exists that, through the "reasonable-man" concept, to warrant a Holding, he makes a decision of monetary value to ensure compliance with Trial-date.

If a Prosecutor brings "waste-of-time" cases before the judge too many times he will be fired (this is no bullshit!). Waste of time cases are cases that a judge believes do not have enough corroborating physical evidence & time line/motive to back up the start of a conviction & what would be upheld if conviction is achieved (appeal). That is NOT a small amount of material. A case before a judge is either well prepared or that Prosecutor will find another line of work quite soon. They are continually reminded of that fact.

There are VERY clear & definitive guidelines that he must follow or his rulings will be overturned as well as the Trial on Appeal. These exists in Felony cases wherein there is what is known as a "Preponderance of Evidence". That is just for the Holding. For the Conviction we know that it has to be Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.....That's NOT light-weight evidence. Planting something like dope on someone will not make that cut. It's going to be something on the level with Felony Manslaughter with very well defined, clear-cut evidence corroborated by INDEPENDENT analysis, not just circumstantial evidence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But things like direct physical evidence linked to time-lines and witnesses independent of the Prosecution & police, etc. The level for "Preponderance of Evidence" is not a few fibers or hairs.

However, I do believe that abuses occur & innocent people get fucked. I'm NOT saying that doesn't happen. But generally it takes place in a manner where they are involved in big league trials and are VERY close to the evidence for the mistakes to be made. Thousands of guilty people walk everyday compared to innocents who get screwed. Our original discussion was centered on "planting evidence" & that's low-level dope; not violent crime where more stuff MUST exist for even an arrest to start the process.

The greatest chance of this occurring is when the defendant has a history. Because of the rate of recidivism, statistically it is more likely than not that the Defendant had committed the crime (the rates of recidivism are astounding: that's just fact). This sways even the most timid of judges to secure compliance with trial date. If someone has a history & they have a brain, they keep their nose clean because they know this fact in their bones. But there are always exceptions and actions in passion, as well as abject terror of going back to prison - where-upon someone will not do the smart thing.

Now then, we have the "harassment detention" issue, which is what I believe you are dealing with. This certainly can happen. But there are recourses to this. Remember however, what the "defendant-plaintiff" is doing here now is reversing the process. Now the question becomes, what evidence exists that the individual was detained out of malice or spite. Poor judgment is not enough. Poor judgment is actually proven if the conviction is reversed upon Appeal or the defendant can prove that the arrest was made in error with afore-thought. If an Appeal process is achieved, the judge & prosecutor get a black eye and after several of these they can be removed. Even one or two and they are viewed as less than competent. A reversal can also open the door for a serious level of monetary compensation. This does not give you your time back, etc.....I certainly understand that fact! If any evidence can be admitted that LE acted in bad faith, then the Gates of Hell opens in terms of compensation.

Remember however we must ask why the authorities did what they did. That answer determines a lot. Incompetency is one issue, malice, another. Frankly less arrests result in trail than many think. The fact that people spend time in jail awaiting justice & that time is lost forever is something dealt with on a daily basis by a variety of agencies & organizations. Sometimes an arrest and a time in jail is a winning lottery ticket.......but, yes, not always.

[Bugger]

As a retired LEO I can give you one important piece of advice: When questioned by an LEO .... KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! In general, yes; except to deny all (knowing) guilt and criminal liability, to ask for or summon a lawyer if arrested, and (in the U$A) to plead the Fifth Amendment if questioned in an incriminating manner. As a precaution against arrest in the U$A, know your Miranda rights.
A favorite trick of the Pigs everywhere is to coax information and damaging admissions out of alleged suspects, - and "put words in their mouths" - by making out that they know more incriminating evidence pertaining to the "suspects" than what they really have, with which they try to frame the "suspects" so as to gain promotion.
BTW, TrevorSlyFox, you say you are a retired L.E.O. What sort of Pig force were you in?

[TreverSlyFox]

Bugger,

A small Township Police Department, though we made the largest, uniformed, street drug bust for crack in the State just before I retired. Pure luck on that one though since there was no investigation work before hand. Just rounded a corner in a marked Squad Car and saw a known dealer tossed a brown paper sack under a dumpster when he saw us.

"A favorite trick of the Pigs everywhere is to coax information and damaging admissions out of alleged suspects..."

Actually it's not a trick, you would be so amazed at how many people just won't shut up when your talking to them. You ask one yes or no question and the next thing they're telling you their whole life story. Most of the people I locked up "talked" themselves behind bars, there were times I was astounded at the stuff people told me.

I actually had a person that was suspected of a Misdemeanor crime tell us all about the Felony B&E he pulled at that time as an alibi.

[Jacks Complete]

Wow, must be nice to live in the USA and have all those freedoms.

I've said before that the UK system is perfectly designed to find you guilty at every stage, whether by confession or coercion. No keeping quiet here - it will be used against you. No right to a jury trial, as they might give the wrong answer. And so on. Warrantless searches? Every damned day. We have a government who when the police say "We need to do this" they simply say yes.

There was a stink a few years back when the police set up metal detectors at a train station and simply made people walk through it. Illegal search? No, not at all. They simply argued that they then had a just cause to search the person if the metal detector went beep! A couple of guys refused, and it stopped. So last week, they passed a law letting the pigs do just what they had to stop doing there because they had no right.

This week, it was announced that the police can freely harass people they don't like the look of! Oh, and they are all getting Tasers, too.

The way this country is going (currently there is a big stink about a guy locked up for 18 hours for allegedly dropping an apple core. A guy with no priors and heart problems that meant he was seen twice by the police doctor while in the cells, who now has DNA and mugshots and fingerprints stored forever!) it will be better to run no matter what, or kill the copper and hope you get away with it, since you will end up locked up forever for a thought crime at this rate.