Texas Court Rules That Police May Introduce Illegally-Gathered Evidence At Trial

[bones_708]

We are on a thread about a decision on the legality of a search but you think it's about gun rights? I wasn't attacking your education I was saying you just don;t get it and made a joke about the schools nowadays. Sorry if you took it personal but still you are mixing arguments and creating a logical fallacy. You invalidating the the fist to nose argument does not invalidate the logic behind constitutional limits nor does going on about gun rights somehow automatically translate to 4th amendment protections. And as far as how things are going now you may be right that there are more firearm restriction than before but 4th amendment rights, you know the topic of the thread, are hardly swirling down a black hole. Heck 60 years ago the whole thing wouldn't of even been a question. Cops have more restrictions and rules than ever to safeguard our rights. If you were a person of color, poor, or just out of the mainstream a cop could do almost anything they wanted and often did. Warrant rules were looser and there were many more exceptions. But since that doesn't fit the narrative......

 

[jrbfishn]

So how far back do we go? How much more leeway do cops need? If the cops could wait till the next day, why not a couple more hours? Especially for a warrant they new they would get anyway. Who is to say someone did or did not lie? With any search of the house, everything is called into question. Doubt has been raised. I do not like drugs, legal or otherwise, but i am not willing to give up rights, even for the guilty. Unlawfull search is excactly that, regardless of how evidence is used. If they had probable cause to go there in the first place, why bother with the warrant and why omit pertinent facts in the affidavit? The appearance of wrong.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

So how far back do we go? How much more leeway do cops need? If the cops could wait till the next day, why not a couple more hours? Especially for a warrant they new they would get anyway. Who is to say someone did or did not lie? With any search of the house, everything is called into question. Doubt has been raised. I do not like drugs, legal or otherwise, but i am not willing to give up rights, even for the guilty. Unlawfull search is excactly that, regardless of how evidence is used. If they had probable cause to go there in the first place, why bother with the warrant and why omit pertinent facts in the affidavit? The appearance of wrong.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

The opinion piece said they omitted facts not the court. Read the opinion linked by the article. The thing was 30 freekin pages. The detective had several reasons for entering and detaining the suspects that he seems to of honestly thought would meet exigent circumstance for for doing so. The original court disagreed and disallowed any evidence from that initial entry and "safety sweep" That evidence is gone and is not being challenged. They did have enough evidence to secure a warrant and they were all out on the lawn and waited until they got the warrant and then went in and did a search and seizure. No evidence used in the application for the warrant came from the initial entry so the court allowed the evidence from the warrant to stay in.

 

[jrbfishn]

Regargless of his intention or reasoning,he called everything into question. My question, are you saying warrant rules are too strong? Any search without a warrant or ironclad probable cause is unwarranted.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

Regargless of his intention or reasoning,he called everything into question. My question, are you saying warrant rules are too strong? Any search without a warrant or ironclad probable cause is unwarranted.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

Two searches, two different items seized, only one ruled inadmissible.

Look you can't and shouldn't lump all cases in togeather. In thiss case the detective gave reasons for the quick arrests without warrants. They make sence but were not good enough for the original judge. So be it. It's easy to Mon morning quarterback but there is a reason they pay judges the big bucks and it's not because they wear snazzy black dresses. The courts opinion was 30 pages and weight a mountain on evidence and precedent. The Detective thought he had good enough reasons but it wasn't quite enough. Sure any evidence seized when they initially made the warrant less entry was thrown out. But after that entry they went outside and waited and got a warrant to go in and search using PC that they already had and that had, nothing to do with their initial entry. Why invalidate the second search? To punish the cops? What sense does that make? It's not some had and fast line. Judges don't always where that line is so cops just have to do the best they can. Since it appears everything was in good faith and no one had any allegations of any purposeful misconduct by the cops that they made to the court I don't see why the second search would be bad. In my view only if the warrant for the second search relied on the bad initial entry should it be thrown out.

 

[Younggun]

We are on a thread about a decision on the legality of a search but you think it's about gun rights? I wasn't attacking your education I was saying you just don;t get it and made a joke about the schools nowadays. Sorry if you took it personal but still you are mixing arguments and creating a logical fallacy. You invalidating the the fist to nose argument does not invalidate the logic behind constitutional limits nor does going on about gun rights somehow automatically translate to 4th amendment protections. And as far as how things are going now you may be right that there are more firearm restriction than before but 4th amendment rights, you know the topic of the thread, are hardly swirling down a black hole. Heck 60 years ago the whole thing wouldn't of even been a question. Cops have more restrictions and rules than ever to safeguard our rights. If you were a person of color, poor, or just out of the mainstream a cop could do almost anything they wanted and often did. Warrant rules were looser and there were many more exceptions. But since that doesn't fit the narrative......

Thread was already bearing OT. I made no comments about the search, only about SCOTUS in response to another comment about SCOTUS.

That is when you rebutted with the "fire in the theatre" argument and postured that rights must be limited "for the good of society". Aaand the debate was on.

The thread had already begun veering from the search, it happens around here. And yes, our fourth amendment rights are being heavily attacked. Most recent and obvious example would be the NSA data mining and collection.

And to be clear, I've still made no comment on the legality or constitutionality concerning the search in the OP.

 

[dustycorgill]

"rights must be limited "for the good of society".

YoungGun you are correct. Rights being limited for the "good of society" is what the libs in government spew all day long. That was what they repeated over and over again in 2013 when they were trying to pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws on guns. People have a right to "feel safe"? Ummm, no....you dont. It is YOUR responsibility to make yourself feel safe.

As far as the search goes, I dont see why they couldn't have secured a warrant first.

 

[40Arpent]

I am finished with this thread.

Just stop it bones!! You are making too much sense. You are confusing the militia "group-think".

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/rants-raves/56692-tgtalk-trolls-explained.html

 

[Younggun]

Yup

 

[bones_708]

"rights must be limited "for the good of society".

YoungGun you are correct. Rights being limited for the "good of society" is what the libs in government spew all day long. That was what they repeated over and over again in 2013 when they were trying to pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws on guns. People have a right to "feel safe"? Ummm, no....you dont. It is YOUR responsibility to make yourself feel safe.

As far as the search goes, I dont see why they couldn't have secured a warrant first.

Did you bother to read the court opinion?

 

[jrbfishn]

My question was more to YOU, bones, how many rights are you willing to give up? At what point do we stop giving? At what point do we NOT question? By rushing, regardless of the good intention, THEY call everthing into question. Especially since they had enough to get the warrant and did not wait, and then left out any information from anyone. Makes one wonder, what else was left out of the "facts"?


from a non-recovering coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

My question was more to YOU, bones, how many rights are you willing to give up? At what point do we stop giving? At what point do we NOT question? By rushing, regardless of the good intention, THEY call everthing into question. Especially since they had enough to get the warrant and did not wait, and then left out any information from anyone. Makes one wonder, what else was left out of the "facts"?

First I don't feel like I'm giving anything away with this ruling. It's like people are pissed because they might lose some get out of jail free card. Something you don't deserve but get as a bonus. Like if you ever get in legal trouble the cop might make some little mistake that doesn't affect you at all but because of that you'll get off. MY GOD!! How dare they take that from you. I also don't think they called anything into question. They just made a mistake. Mind you the defence isn't saying that the cops planted anything or did something crooked here. Here is another tidbit. It was such a close call about exigent circumstances that if any of the cops had said they smelled something chemical then it would of been good. They make even a tiny lie and the arrest was good. But they didn't lie, had evidence suppressed, but somehow you still think they "called everything into question". No, I don't think they did to anyone unbiased.By the way what evidence did they leave out? Yo do realize that the defence wasn't saying that in court.? That they didn't need and had no reason to include anything else. That is a mis-fact, has no bearing at all, and just serves to twist the narrative not make any honest point.

Honestly you still haven't made the case why they should suppress the second search.

 

[jrbfishn]

You answered my question, thanks.


from a non-recovering coffeeholic

 

[London]

Edited. Not worth feeding the trolls.

 

[London]

Article III where they call it the supreme court. Courts already were ruling on the constitutionality of state laws per State Consttutions even before they finished the Constitution. Arguing that the supreme court in the US was never granted the power to decide the constitutionality of law is just ........ I'm trying to say it without being insulting but I don't have a neutral way to do so

Wrong. SCOTUS granted themselves that power in Marbury Vs. Madison and the Govt. just let them continue doing it long enough that they are pretty much beyond challenge at this point.

Article III makes a vague reference to laws under the Constitution but for the most part establishes SCOTUS as the official federal court.

 

[Texasjack]

Edited. Not worth feeding the trolls.

+1

 

[bones_708]

Wrong. SCOTUS granted themselves that power in Marbury Vs. Madison and the Govt. just let them continue doing it long enough that they are pretty much beyond challenge at this point.

Article III makes a vague reference to laws under the Constitution but for the most part establishes SCOTUS as the official federal court.

That is absurd. All courts can judge constitutionality and Scotus is the last word in all courts so how in the heck could anyone think SCOTUS shouldn't be judging the constitutionality of our laws? There is no logic in that position. Ain Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote about Judicial Review, you know the power to judge the constitutionality of laws and actions, in the Federalist Papers urging the adoption of the Constitution.

"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Marbury Vs. Madison was just the first time SCOTUS acted on their authority ruling a law unconstitutional. Courts found laws unconstitutional in over 30 cases before Marbury. The idea that Marbury created something is a myth at best.

Now it's true that you would also reference article IV in any true examination of judicial review but somehow I doubt this is the place for that. Sufficient to say their is no real doubt of the legitimacy of judicial review by anyone who has the slightest idea what they are talking about.

 

[dustycorgill]

Hamilton and Madison did write about this, however men in their time were of a different breed. Not the panzy ass liberal activist know it all pricks that get seated in the courts today.

 

[MPA1988]

Edited. Not worth feeding the trolls.

Good move on your part to edit, but was it necessary to call others a troll just because you fail to present a sound and reasoned argument?

 

[breakingcontact]

Did someone say something after Dusty? I thought I heard something but maybe not. Just some noise.