The validity of an arrest does not taint evidence. A search can be conducted separately from an arrest and it's the validity of the search that controls the admissibility of the resultant evidence.
If you think that cops anywhere are being even vaguely careful about who they arrest then you've been living in a different country than I have. (For the record no I don't think cops in general are evil, but I don't think it's possible to look at the countrywide responses to Occupy and not realize that the game has changed. Colored folk have always lived this reality; now white folks get it too.)
In those cases where a cop has a legitimate reason to arrest and then come back for the search, a. they'll have plenty of time to get a warrant (and will do so),
What you're describing is EXACTLY counterfactual to what happened in this case. The cops took the defendant away and returned an hour later, warrantless. You appear to be asserting that, contrary to the facts of this case, the cops will behave in a different manner. I see no reason why they should, given this decision.
In cases where the cops suspect a crime in progress, there's plenty of case law supporting spur of the moment permission to search.
That's both irrelevant and partly untrue. A crime in progress can provide grounds for an arrest, but not for a blanket search. The law and precedent allow for searches incidental to the arrest; for example, of the arrested person's body and effects. There's also a "plain view" exception that permits searches of premises and vehicles, incident to an arrest. Other than that, a search still requires a warrant. Getting a warrant requires production of allegations that the target of the warrant is materially related to the specific criminal matter. That's the core of the 4th Amendment.
And it's wholly irrelevant in this case because there was no crime in progress at the time of the request to search, nor at the time of the subsequent search.
why would a woman be expected to side with anyone, especially when the women in question know full well the gravity of their opinions
I would expect a woman to have a perspective and sensitivity to the dangers women face that a male judge would not necessarily have. This case illustrated those dangers and thus one might naively assume how a Justice would vote. Though i was unaware of the circumstances noted in Footnote 5 of the dissent at the time I wrote the original entry.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-03-02 04:38 am (UTC)If you think that cops anywhere are being even vaguely careful about who they arrest then you've been living in a different country than I have. (For the record no I don't think cops in general are evil, but I don't think it's possible to look at the countrywide responses to Occupy and not realize that the game has changed. Colored folk have always lived this reality; now white folks get it too.)
In those cases where a cop has a legitimate reason to arrest and then come back for the search, a. they'll have plenty of time to get a warrant (and will do so),
What you're describing is EXACTLY counterfactual to what happened in this case. The cops took the defendant away and returned an hour later, warrantless. You appear to be asserting that, contrary to the facts of this case, the cops will behave in a different manner. I see no reason why they should, given this decision.
In cases where the cops suspect a crime in progress, there's plenty of case law supporting spur of the moment permission to search.
That's both irrelevant and partly untrue. A crime in progress can provide grounds for an arrest, but not for a blanket search. The law and precedent allow for searches incidental to the arrest; for example, of the arrested person's body and effects. There's also a "plain view" exception that permits searches of premises and vehicles, incident to an arrest. Other than that, a search still requires a warrant. Getting a warrant requires production of allegations that the target of the warrant is materially related to the specific criminal matter. That's the core of the 4th Amendment.
And it's wholly irrelevant in this case because there was no crime in progress at the time of the request to search, nor at the time of the subsequent search.
why would a woman be expected to side with anyone, especially when the women in question know full well the gravity of their opinions
I would expect a woman to have a perspective and sensitivity to the dangers women face that a male judge would not necessarily have. This case illustrated those dangers and thus one might naively assume how a Justice would vote. Though i was unaware of the circumstances noted in Footnote 5 of the dissent at the time I wrote the original entry.