Court Says There's No Remedy For Person Whose Vehicle Was Subjected To Civil Forfeiture After An Illegal Search
from the 4th-Amendment-meets-local-statutes-and-no-one-wins-but-the-government dept
A bizarre case comes out of the Texas court system -- landing squarely in the middle of a legal Bermuda Triangle where illegal searches meet civil asset forfeiture… and everything is still somehow perfectly legal. (via FourthAmendment.com)
The facts of the case: police officers arrested Miguel Herrera and seized his 2004 Lincoln Navigator. An inventory search of the vehicle uncovered drugs and the state moved to seize the vehicle itself as "contraband" using civil (rather than criminal -- this is important) asset forfeiture. Herrera argued that the stop itself was illegal and anything resulting from it -- the drugs and the civil seizure of the vehicle -- should be suppressed.
The Supreme Court of Texas examines the facts of the case, along with the applicable statutes, and -- after discarding a US Supreme Court decision that would have found in Herrera's favor -- decides there's nothing he can do to challenge the seizure. He can't even move to suppress the evidence uncovered following the illegal stop -- the same search that led to the state seizing his vehicle under civil forfeiture statutes.
The presiding judges spend several pages (including two concurrences) discussing the aspects [PDF] of this case in detail, but cannot bring themselves to exclude the evidence obtained from the illegal search, much less return Herrera's vehicle to him.
First, the court decides that the deterrent effect of suppressing the evidence is outweighed by the cost to society.
In this case… the exclusion of admittedly relevant evidence imposes a substantial social cost. Here, the vehicle and the evidence found within it are indisputably relevant—if the state shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle was “used or intended to be used in the commission of” a felony under the Controlled Substances Act, then it is “contraband.” If it qualifies as contraband under Chapter 59, then it “is subject to seizure and forfeiture.”
[...]
Additionally, applying the exclusionary rule here ostensibly results in returning a vehicle “used or intended to be used” in the commission of drug crimes to its owner. See CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 59.01(2)(B)(i). Applying the rule to Chapter 59, therefore, would likely have the undesirable effect of politely handing such vehicles—or computers, money, weapons, or whatever else—back to those who might put them to criminal use.
The court moves on to dismiss the Supreme Court's 1965 decision (One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania), suggesting not only that things have changed too much over the past 50 years to consider it relevant, but also -- unbelievably -- that the seizure of a person's assets via civil forfeiture is not a form of punishment.
[T]he legal and jurisprudential landscapes have changed significantly since Plymouth Sedan was decided in 1965, weakening some of the opinion’s underpinnings. For one thing, Plymouth Sedan was decided at “a time when [the Supreme Court’s] exclusionary-rule cases were not nearly so discriminating in their approach to the doctrine,” yet more recently the Court has “abandoned the old, ‘reflexive’ application of the doctrine, and imposed a more rigorous weighing of its costs and deterrence benefits.” Thus, the Court’s more recent jurisprudence, and its now well-established cost-benefit analysis, controls our analysis. And, as discussed, the “deterrences against [illegal searches] are substantial—incomparably greater than the factors deterring warrantless entries when Mapp [and Plymouth Sedan] [were] decided.”
Finally, in Plymouth Sedan, the forfeiture proceeding’s “object, like a criminal proceeding, [was] to penalize for the commission of an offense against the law.” See 380 U.S. at 700. Chapter 59 forfeitures, on the other hand, are expressly civil and non-punitive; indeed, “[i]t is the intention of the legislature that asset forfeiture is remedial in nature and not a form of punishment.”
It's hard to see how civil asset forfeiture isn't a form of punishment. Without having to prove an asset was illegally obtained or used in criminal activity, the state can simply take cars, money, houses, etc. away from citizens simply by providing a limited amount of evidence suggesting these might have been related to criminal activity. And if the state is wrong, it's still a long, uphill battle for anyone seeking to have their property returned. This is even admitted by the court in the same paragraph.
While this provision certainly relates to criminal activity, it does not require any proof that a person committed a crime—it only requires that the state prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is contraband.
The court then concludes that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the state's civil forfeiture statutes provide a remedy for Herrera -- at least not one the court is willing to grant.
Even if the state is not statutorily empowered to unlawfully seize contraband, (and it is not), what is the remedy for failure to comply with article 59.03(b)? Herrera argued in his motion to suppress—and argues now—that the remedy is exclusion. Yet what is the source of this exclusionary remedy? As discussed above, it is not the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional rule applies only when its deterrence benefits outweigh its heavy social costs, and that is not the case here. Nor does Chapter 59 provide for exclusion. To start, article 59.03(b) deals with seizure of the property to be forfeited; it does not concern itself with other evidence that might be used to prove property is subject to forfeiture. Thus, we reject Herrera’s argument that evidence found during the seizure should be excluded under article 59.03(b).
Moreover, while article 59.03 appears to limit officer conduct as to seizure of property subject to forfeiture, it does not provide a remedy—much less exclusion—for a violation of that apparent limitation. Articles 59.03(a) and (b) provide for how property subject to forfeiture may be seized. Article 59.03(c) requires the peace officer who seized the property to provide the attorney representing the state with a sworn statement including, among other things, “a list of the officer’s reasons for the seizure.” In the forfeiture proceeding, that attorney must then “attach to the notice [of seizure and intended forfeiture] the peace officer’s sworn statement.” See CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 59.04(b). Yet, despite providing fairly detailed notice requirements such as these, Chapter 59 never mentions excluding or suppressing property subject to forfeiture, even if such property is unlawfully seized…
By finding no remedy workable or worthwhile in the face of societal cost, the Texas Supreme Court has given law enforcement another way to salvage evidence obtained by illegal searches: simply seize the "container" (house, car, boat, etc.) the evidence was discovered in.
As defense attorney John Wesley Hall notes in his post on the case, this decision will also encourage more questionable asset forfeitures because the court here has declared it's unwilling to entertain notions of deterrence when dealing with "non-punitive" civil seizures.
I disagree with the lack of deterrence because the seizure for forfeiture is immediate, before booking, and it’s part and parcel of the police arsenal to punish the defendant before trial; that along with a high bail. Besides, the police help finance their drug enforcement operations with forfeitures, even when there’s no prosecution. It’s contingent fee law enforcement.
It's a state Supreme Court decision, so it's precedential. That's the bad news. The (potentially) good news is that it touched on an issue previously handled by the US Supreme Court, so it could be pushed up the judicial ladder back in the direction the ignored decision emanated from. Of course, this Supreme Court has been very inconsistent on Fourth Amendment issues and seems particularly willing to punt on issues it would rather not address directly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, civil forfeiture, illegal search, miguel herrera, remedies, texas
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I wonder if those Texas judges would have used the same logic when the FBI tried to compel Apple to unlock a phone using a law from 1789.
And I really hope every copyright case lands in front of these judges so we can cite how much things have changed since the 1787 Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Stupid criminals go into cells, smart criminals go into law enforcement and/or politics'
So even if the theft(let's call it what it is) is determined to have been illegal, the thieves with badges still get to keep their stolen goods. Even if the theft is ruled to be illegal, the results from it can still be used as evidence.
Yup, that'll certainly show those criminals that crime does't pay. Well, it doesn't pay unless you're a cop or other government agent anyway, if you are then it pays extremely well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now quit bitching about us stealing your car & violating your rights... you get none because you are bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the car that is bad and needs to get stopped from doing bad things while under the care of its owner. The process is similar to childcare seizing a criminal child and giving it to foster parents.
It's for the best of the car and is nothing like a punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If not, then the analogy is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seize the courthouses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seize the courthouses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except that we are not talking about an accused criminal here but rather one that could not be successfully accused because of the evidence stemming from an illegitimate search. For (successfully) accused criminals, there is criminal asset forfeiture. This isn't it. This is taking nice stuff that the police want instead of accusing a purported criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many gunfights do police want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
::cough:: Bullshit! The violation of the 4th Amendment is the heaviest of social costs. It weakens the rights of other citizens in our society and all to alternatively punish someone they can't even bother to properly prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ignore inconvenient parts of the constitution?
Where does the Constitution say that parts of it don't apply if the "social costs" are too great? The Constitution isn't a document of polite requests to government.
Whenever judges say or write that they have balanced the cost of some law or other, you know that they are just making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ignore inconvenient parts of the constitution?
And in this case, we are talking about the Bill of Rights. That explicitly names no-go areas for the government. As such, it is utterly nonsensical to talk about its "deterrence": there are no punishments for the government not heeding the constitution other than the government no longer being legitimate since there is no law enforcement outside of the government.
Basically, the only "deterrence" from breaking the Bill of Rights is that when it becomes endemic, it legitimates a military or civil coup with the target of reestablishing constitutional rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ignore inconvenient parts of the constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if those Texas judges would have used the same logic when the FBI tried to compel Apple to unlock a phone using a law from 1789.
And I really hope every copyright case lands in front of these judges so we can cite how much things have changed since the 1787 Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's On!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what is the social cost of allowing agents of the state to perform unreasonable searches and seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what is the social cost of allowing agents of the state to perform unreasonable searches and seizures.
Why if the police aren't allowed to do anything and everything they want society itself will undoubtedly collapse, so clearly the social costs, whatever that is, of allowing that is acceptable.
When you start from the position of 'The police can do no wrong'/'Violations of the law are acceptable so long as accused criminals are caught and/or punished', as seems to be the case here, the balancing act between public interests and 'law enforcement' interests will always come down heavily on the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You won't feed the flames with a turd as fetid and steamy as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja Vu all over again
Scuz me while I kiss my posterior goodbye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't expect anything else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't see anything wrong with the verdict
Civil asset forfeiture is designed as a tool for withdrawing the tools for crimes from use, independent of their owners or a criminal or other conviction of them.
The evidence here has been obtained in a search illegal in context of obtaining an illegal conviction. The car, however, has not contested the search leading to its seizure.
In short: the whole bullshit celebrated here is square in the middle road of asset forfeiture's legal existence. They could not convict the car owner, but they can convict and seize the car and keep it due to evidence that they got in unrelated contexts which they did not pursue.
You can't throw out this seizure without throwing out civil asset forfeiture as an independently working tool altogether.
Mind you: I very much am of the opinion that the whole construct is unconstitutional and an abomination on due process and should be abolished.
As long as it isn't, this particular case is square with both letter and intent of civil asset forfeiture. This is what it is supposed to do, not as a convenient side effect but as its principal justification.
It's not plucking fruit from the forbidden tree but rather picking up from the ground what you got by a shakedown.
Hooray for U.S.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't see anything wrong with the verdict
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops and Courts Not Learning...Yet
A PR campaign could use the motto "Civil Assets Matter."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Precedent
Anyone want to apply that statement to the second amendment? Anyone in Texas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does the insurance cover theft? I think you need comprehensive in order to cover that - but there is probably some clause giving the corporation a way out of their obligations. Since the cops act and think as though they are gods, the insurance companies can simply say the auto theft is an act of god and show you the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In reality, it is theft, of course -- but reality doesn't count here, only legality does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before answering, consider the fact that in doing so you would be aiding and abetting a known criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The real question is whether or not my comprehensive insurance policy would cover the case of law enforcement seizing and disposing of it. I'm uncertain about this, but it looks like if I can demonstrate that this happened due to no fault of my own, it would be covered.
However, it would only pay off the current value of the car, not the amount of the loan. If I owe more than the car is worth (as is usually the case due to depreciation of the value of the car), then I would still be required to pay off the amount that the insurance didn't cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have a car with a bunch of illegal drugs in it. Yes they botched the search; So the gov should not be able to use the drugs to prosecute him because of the illegal search, but it doesn't change the fact that their are/were illegal drugs in the car. They can't use the evidence against the guy driving the car because they botched the search, but someone was committing a crime, and was using the car to do it. I can see now why they are trying to take the "the car is guilty of a crime" angle lately.
I could make an argument for this from either side. Ill have to give this some more thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone is going to have their property taken from them, it damn well should requiring a finding of guilt in court, no matter how obvious it was that a crime was committed, otherwise you're allowing people to have their stuff taken not because they were found guilty in court, but because their stuff was accused of being guilty, and being inanimate had no way of protesting it's innocence.
If you're allowed to punish someone(which, contrary to the warped logic of the judges here asset forfeiture/robbery at badge-point absolutely is) without a finding of guilt in court than why even bother with the trial in the first place?
'We say you're guilty, and while we may not have enough to throw you into a cell we're taking your stuff anyway' is beyond ridiculous, and a complete violation of the concept of 'Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If inanimate objects aren't capable of guilt, then they should give the drugs back to the owner because they searched the car illegally? I'm thinking that no they should not, because the drugs in and of themselves are illegal right? How about the container used to transport them? Just because the police didn't search the car legally doesn't mean the car wasn't being used to transport illegal drugs.
In my opinion; there should be serious repercussions to police forces for illegal searches, and the evidence shouldn't be able to be used to prosecute the accused. But at the same time, if something is illegal, or being used illegally, then I could make an argument in it being seized.. especially if it is in itself illegal.
Someone was using that car to transport illegal drugs. Regardless of how it breaks down or who was doing it, the car was being used in an illegal fashion and I'm not talking about an infraction, I'm talking about the commission of a felony. Like I said, I'll have to give this more thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Possession of the drugs is illegal, so as another person noted handing them back would be essentially aiding and abetting a crime, so no, the drugs themselves should probably be destroyed.
Possession of a vehicle though is entirely legal, and without a conviction of guilt it's rather difficult to say that it was being used in a crime that legally didn't happen.
This time it was a car, which is bad enough to lose, but what about when(not if) the search is of a house? Should the police be able to keep the house simply because it was 'involved' in criminal action? Even if the search itself is found illegal, the evidence suppressed, and no finding of guilt is made?
Just because the police didn't search the car legally doesn't mean the car wasn't being used to transport illegal drugs.
According to what legal finding of guilt? No charge means no crime essentially(otherwise suppression wouldn't matter), which means legally at least it wasn't being used for squat other than driving, and so long as the accused has an up to date license, that's entirely legal.
Had they managed to secure a conviction by not screwing up the search, I might have agreed with you(probably wouldn't, as I find the whole asset forfeiture idea rotten to the core, but might). As it stands though they're punishing him by stealing the car, without a conviction of guilt, meaning suppression only negated some of the potential punishment, while the rest is still given a pass as perfectly legal.
Given I find the idea of a person being found innocent(whether they are or not) and still punished, you can imagine I don't much care for that happening here, since at that point why even have a trial?
This is one of those cases where defending the rights of the innocent sometimes requires defending the rights of the guilty. The facts seem to be pretty clear, the accused was transporting drugs, so had the search been handled correctly(read: legally) then this should have been an easy open and shut case for the police. It wasn't however, and as a result the evidence is tossed and the accused walks(pun unintended).
To allow the police to keep property of the accused even after a finding of guilt allows them to profit even when they break the law, and undercuts the entire reason for the laws in place to limit what they can and cannot do, neither of which are acceptable to me. In addition it also means that even a finding of innocence doesn't protect the accused from being punished, which I also find unacceptable for the reasons I've noted above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"This is one of those cases where defending the rights of the innocent sometimes requires defending the rights of the guilty. "
If we have to let a few bad guys go to protect the integrity of the legal system, then so be it. But it's a tough pill to swallow.
I imagine myself as a cop standing over a car load of drugs/booze/weapons... that in the eyes of the law, doesn't actually exist, and nothing can be done because a rookie cop screwed up. I've seen what that stuff will do to a community, it's not pretty.
"Just because the police didn't search the car legally doesn't mean the car wasn't being used to transport illegal drugs.
According to what legal finding of guilt? No charge means no crime essentially(otherwise suppression wouldn't matter), which means legally at least it wasn't being used for squat other than driving, and so long as the accused has an up to date license, that's entirely legal."
I guess I'm struggling with the reality of the whole thing. Guilty or not, either your standing over a trunk full of illegal booze/drugs/guns or not. It's either there, or it's not. In my mind, just because a cop screwed up shouldn't mean the guy gets a free ride. But that is exactly what it means. I understand it, and I even sympathize a bit with it, but I don't agree 100% with it. But that is the reality of our legal system I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they had not carried out an illegal search, they would not have known of the presence of the drugs/booze or guns. Requiring that cops follow correct procedures, and actually have grounds for a search is what should prevent them searching any vehicle or property on a hunch or just because they do not like the person.
The US practice of searching vehicles when the can find any excuse to stop the vehicle is actually an abuse of power, as it is easy to find an excuse to stop a vehicle if they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I imagine myself as a cop standing over a car load of drugs/booze/weapons... that in the eyes of the law, doesn't actually exist, and nothing can be done because a rookie cop screwed up. I've seen what that stuff will do to a community, it's not pretty.
Absolutely, having a case tossed because someone else screwed up and didn't follow the law, even when you know without a doubt that the person is guilty of what they're charged with has got to be seriously vexing and galling. However galling it is however it's still the better option, as the alternative is far, far worse.
If the laws don't have to be followed then there's really no point in having them in place at all as they become entirely optional, 'guidelines' rather than 'rules/laws', and available for 'interpretation' by whoever happens to be carrying the badge at the moment.
If violations of the laws, especially violations conducted by those tasked with enforcing the laws don't have consequences, of which losing a case should be the least, then they have no reason to care about or follow the laws, and plenty of motivation to ignore them entirely.
Here for example they botched a case, and while it cost them a conviction they still got to keep the car, which means they still came out ahead. Next time it might be something more valuable, and with this ruling making it clear that whether or not the search is ruled to be illegal they still get to keep the property they have even less motivation than they had before to obey the limits the law (theoretically) imposes on their actions, and more motivation to play fast and loose with the law if it might get them something expensive.
The limits in place on police and government action are meant to protect the public, even if at times that means protecting the criminal element as well, because if accused or even actual criminals don't have rights then no-one does. If all it takes to strip someone of their rights is an accusation then they are no longer rights, and barely qualify as privilege.
I guess I'm struggling with the reality of the whole thing. Guilty or not, either your standing over a trunk full of illegal booze/drugs/guns or not. It's either there, or it's not. In my mind, just because a cop screwed up shouldn't mean the guy gets a free ride. But that is exactly what it means. I understand it, and I even sympathize a bit with it, but I don't agree 100% with it. But that is the reality of our legal system I guess.
As you said before it can be a hard pill to swallow, but if the law can be ignored by the very same people that are tasked with upholding it, if there's no penalty for violations of it and in fact incentives for violations, then society suffers as those tasked with upholding the laws are able to flaunt them with impunity. Laws cease to be about protecting the public and turn into weapons to be used against them at whim, regardless of actual innocence or guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There were no tests at all of any nature whatsoever of the substances to determine their nature or quantity. Without knowing that, there is no knowing whether they are legal, licit, whatever other term(s)including illegal may apply. None.
And don't you freaking DARE get on your high horse about field tests are reliable, and cops are experts. The cops are not experts and field tests are notoriously unreliable. I've done lab work professionally and I have friends who do work in labs. None of us would even look at a test kit as inaccurate as the ones the cops use for drug testing.
Even with lab work supporting the conclusion the substances were (probably) illegal, there's still no knowing whether that person was carrying them legally or illegally, except with a trial. American law and precedent are pretty granular, and cops are (once again, with feeling) not experts, so a trial is necessary to make that determination.
Our justice system is supposed to be premised on the facts of the case. Here, we have no facts, hence no crime. No crime, no forfeiture. End of conversation. And since the stop and search were ruled illegal, then the coops shouldn't have even looked askance at taking this person's possession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That was the whole point of the article, is how they used a loophole, in the split, between criminal and civil laws and court processes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All that aside, what I was saying, and you obviously didn't read was; Now that they know the drugs are illegal drugs, and the car was being used to transport them, regardless of how we got to this point, I don't think they should just give the drugs, or the vehicle used to transport them back.. full fucking stop.
Are you suggesting that now that they know the drugs are illegal, and the car was indeed transporting illegal drugs, they should give them both back? If so, I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The rule of law is not there to protect the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent by stopping law enforcement from becoming vigilantes. Supporting the cops here removes that protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think it's two different issues. First issue is shitty police work, full stop.
Second issue isn't so much if an object can be made to be "guilty" of a crime, more that it was a tool used in the committing of the crime regardless of who actually committed the crime. There sit's a car with a shit load of illegal liquor in it, so much in fact the ass of the car is dragging.. shitty police work aside, these idiots were bootlegging. It doesn't justify what and how the police acted in making the illegal stop, but the illegal stop doesn't in and of itself nullify the fact that there is a car with a trunk full of illegal liquor sitting in evidence.
I was just pointing out that i can see both sides of this, and could make a good argument either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Returning the contraband
I do. The state is way out of jurisdiction once they have conducted an illegal search, and -- how shall we say it: it imposes a substantial social cost for there to be any impetus for the police to engage in unreasonable search and seizure, since the temptation to do so is so great on its own. The police are not even trustworthy holding contraband in their evidence lockers or destroying it.
Once we allow law enforcement to gain actually profit from overreach, they're going to do so. Excessively. There are number historic examples of how this goes down.
No, the proper order in this case is for the police to return to him his belongings (including any contraband) in recognition that the state and its agents are not above law either.
The suspect should be compensated for time lost due to the police overreach and then let to go about his business
We need to stop thinking of the police as a caste with a moral high ground over the rest of us. Indeed, if anything they have clearly proven that human beings are incapable of holding that elevated level of power without corruption and indulgence. They just aren't.
The US police is supposed to operate under the principles of policing by Sir Robert Peel (at least they still teach Peelian Principles in cop school and say these are our foundational principles. The police is the people. The people are the police. It's still supposed to be that way. It's not.
Rather, our law enforcement agents are so removed from common civilians now that they regard common civilians as the enemy, they defend their own corruption openly and plainly. They prey commonly on innocent civilians as highwaymen and brigands. They act as nothing more than yet another street gang, merely one backed with state funding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Returning the contraband
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Return of property
Since the initial stop was illegal, the proper thing to do would be to suppress all evidence reasonably derived from that stop and reverse any government actions that arose solely because of the suppressed evidence. Per the Techdirt piece, that means the government has no proof that the car or the driver were engaged in criminal activity. I can see an argument for not returning the illegal drugs, on the basis that under current law, mere possession is a crime, so returning them would necessarily cause the driver to become guilty of possession. Instead, those illegal drugs should be destroyed. However, the car was not inherently illegal and, without the illegally seized evidence, cannot be proved to have been involved in any crime, so returning the car is both right and proper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Return of property
"However, the car was not inherently illegal and, without the illegally seized evidence, cannot be proved to have been involved in any crime, so returning the car is both right and proper."
It all seems very technical no? The reality is quite different I would imagine when your standing over 10 pounds of meth that doesn't actually exist because some rookie cop didn't have a good enough reason to pull the car over. I suppose it's necessary to keep our legal system in check, but to me, it doesn't seem "right".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Return of property
Of course, if the cops get to seize and destroy contraband despite discovering it illegally, there is still a perverse incentive for them to perform illegal stops whenever the contraband they hope to find and destroy is worth the time and materials spent conducting the illegal search. Thus, grandparent's model is arguably insufficiently punitive to the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just make up an excuse and steal whatever you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They already are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only solution
promoting theft all round the american way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the only solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw Texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw Texas
Refusing to go into states that engage in this sort of abuse isn't a real solution. The day is coming when that would mean there are very few places in the US that would be left to be in.
The solution has to be to stop the behavior entirely. I'm not sure how to get there, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw Texas
I'll let him know to look out for a guy with a stuffed tiger rolling down the highway in a large-ish cardboard box with Illinois plates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
The 4th ALWAYS applies regardless of its "social cost" and it most fucking certainly is the case here!
When people understand that they are certain to get an unfair trial, more and more people will are likely to shoot cops, especially criminals because they will have nothing to lose. We put people away for lengthy amounts of time over some of the stupidest fucking shit.
Eventually they will start coming for those Judges too... looks like we are on our way to becoming a 3rd world nation with a vengeance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perfect example
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's pretty bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's pretty bad
I wish I had friends to warn, even if they were Canadian... )-:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Highway Robbery
That's fucking joyous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Highway Robbery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's sum this up: "4th amendment only apply when we say it does."
Which goes quite well with the more general rule of "your rights apply only when we say they do".
And the context will change things a lot:
- If you are white and rich, we will grant you rights broadly.
- If you're non-white and rich, you will have only the exact rights as written in law, no less, but definitely not more.
- If you have a badge, you not only have rights as written in the law (interpreted broadly in your favor already), but we're even willing to cut you some slack on rights you definitely do not have (perjury, theft, rape, murder).
- If you can afford a lawyer, you have a chance that we will examine your case properly. (YMMV though.)
- If can't afford a lawyer, "we will grant you the most overworked one we can find who will urge you to plead guilty." (Thanks to John Oliver for this one.)
- You get bonus points if you can get newspapers and internet to focus on your case for a few days. That will definitely make us examine the case with more attention than it deserves. We're busy and important people after all, we can't more than a few seconds to judge little people like you.
---
Sarcasm aside, this kind of statement is exactly what erodes trust in law, law enforcement and "justice".
If LEOs and judges don't follow proper laws and procedures, how can we expect them to judge people fairly? If they're willing to suspend rights because "the end justifies the means", how is any right guaranteed at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Git yer kicks on rte 66
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The legal and jurisprudential landscapes have changed significantly since The US Constitution was written in 1787.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The legal and jurisprudential landscapes have changed significantly since The US Constitution was written in 1787.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn carpet bagger judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb Texas Supreme Court Justices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"No Remedy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“::cough:: Bullshit! The violation of the 4th Amendment is the heaviest of social costs. It weakens the rights of other citizens in our society and all to alternatively punish someone they can't even bother to properly prosecute.