Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
Showing Original Post only (View all)Supreme Court rules for police in search case [View all]
Source: AP
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it.
The justices voted 5-3 to reinstate the drug-related convictions of a Utah man.
The ruling comes in a case in which a police detective illegally stopped defendant Joseph Edward Strieff on the streets of South Salt Lake City, Utah. A name check revealed an outstanding warrant for Strieff.
Strieff was placed under arrest and searched. He was carrying methamphetamine.
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/1ef09db1314f4d749a574b3dcb3e5871
The most important part.
"The Supreme Court ruled Monday that evidence of a crime may be used against a defendant even if the police did something wrong or illegal in obtaining it."
Crazy stuff!
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
46 replies, 4201 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (21)
ReplyReply to this post
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Justices aren't required to explain fully, but: Have you read the decision for the rationale?
JonLeibowitz
Jun 2016
#5
I suspect what swayed them was that there was already a warrant for the guy.
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#35
We are moving closer to an "Ends justify the means" legal process. That's gonna be fun. n/t
CincyDem
Jun 2016
#10
It'd be nice to know the name of the case, so we could see which it actually says
treestar
Jun 2016
#12
am I incorrect for assuming ANYONE can now be stopped because the law is now "What IF"...
NoMoreRepugs
Jun 2016
#17
Yeah, the War on Certain Drugs, and the invention of flushable toilets, killed it off.
arcane1
Jun 2016
#30
Thats merely her opinion though the court if presented with such a case down the road could
cstanleytech
Jun 2016
#34