You’ve heard the phrase "fruit of the poisonous tree" before, boys and girls? If the Supreme Court’s latest decision is any indication – and it is – there may soon come a day when it is no longer operative.
In 1983, a young lawyer in the Reagan White House was hard at work on what he called in a memorandum “the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” — the principle that evidence obtained by police misconduct cannot be used against a defendant.
The Reagan administration’s attacks on the exclusionary rule — a barrage of speeches, opinion articles, litigation and proposed legislation — never gained much traction. But now that young lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr., is chief justice of the United States.
This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk.
Does anyone else find it exceptionally creepy how very much rightwing, conservative mouthbreathers seem to long for the days of unchecked police powers?
5 comments:
Well, in Canada, we allow illegally obtain evidence into evidence unless doing so would reflect poorly on the process. The idea is that such violations are a disciplinary matter for the police involved, not necessarily a reason to throw the evidence out.
Yes, Mark is right...anything is admissible unless it "Brings the administration of justice into disrepute".
Our courts have been reticent to apply it much though.
Frankly I think it has been terrible in Canada and think it is a very bad step in the US.
The slide to fascism continues.
Given how many more Republicans than Democrats are corrupt scumbags, you'd think that the Right wouldn't be all that keen on making it easier to convict people. I'm just sayin'.
Shrugs. Quelle surprise.
Despite they're constant ranting about 'law n' order' the revolutionaries disguised as conservatives have always been much more in favor of order than law.
Order of curse meaning, 'We do what we want when we want and no one can say dick about it.'
They're allowed to think that. It's a free country. I just wish they weren't such flaming hypocrites about it.
wv='boush' Not kidding.
Hey, if you want to be able to convict based on testimony obtained from torture, this is the first step...
Post a Comment