Site Meter

Where Have All Our Fourth Amendment Rights Gone?

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Colin Miller says:

    Banks and the “clothing exigency exception” sounds similar to United States v. Baptiste, 2011 WL 3793653 (D.Vt. 2011), and the “same sex bathroom exception.” In Baptiste, authorities suspected that an apparently pregnant woman and others were transporting drugs and detained her. The suspect claimed that she needed to use the bathroom, so the officers called for a female officer, who took 45 minutes to arrive. Upon her arrival, the female officer did not escort the suspect to the bathroom. Instead, another 20-30 minutes passed before the suspect confessed. The court found that the detention was reasonable in part because “it was reasonable for the officers to wait for a female officer to assist her.” Of course, upon her arrival, the female officer did not in fact assist her.

    http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2011/09/breaking-bad-district-vermont-deems-detention-pregnant-passenger-need-bathroom-break-reasonable-female-officer-never-her-bathroom-could-arrive/

  2. nidefatt says:

    Fact is, if your State’s constitution doesn’t have its own exclusionary rule that has resisted the good faith exception, you have to accept that there is nothing keeping the police from violating your privacy. That’s the balance the Chief Justice thinks the country’s constitution truly demands.

    Rehnquist once made some goofball comment at an oral argument about how police might not go around stopping people for no reason if the Court didn’t require at least a reasonable suspicion standard and Marshall just laughed him into silence. We don’t have justices like Marshall anymore. We honestly don’t have one justice that knows anything about what it’s like in the criminal justice trenches, save perhaps Sotomayor. It’s a Court of Harvard grad douchebags. You get what you appoint America. Rich folks’ rules.

  3. JoeJP says:

    Note that Tom Clark, not exactly a liberal, thought the exclusionary rule was fundamental to protect the 4A. Mapp v. Ohio. Guy was former prosecutor, dissenter in various Warren Court opinions. Holmes said the same thing. Now, it is something only some commie like Marshall is willing to support wholeheartedly.