From Babylon's High Council...

[Don1]

...man fi fool but nuh suh..


Illegally Obtained Evidence Can Be Used, U.S. High Court Says

By Greg Stohr

Jan. 14 (Bloomberg) -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court gave prosecutors more ability to use evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, ruling against a man who was arrested and searched only because of a police clerical error.

The justices, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, cleared the way for Bennie Dean Herring to be prosecuted for illegal possession of the methamphetamine and pistol he was carrying when he was arrested in 2004 in Coffee County, Alabama.

“In such a case, the criminal should not go free because the constable has blundered,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, using a line from a 1926 Supreme Court decision.

Herring was arrested when he came to the Coffee County sheriff’s department to retrieve something from an impounded truck. At the time, a neighboring county’s computer system showed an active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear in court on a felony charge. That warrant in reality had been recalled, so Coffee County police lacked any legal basis to arrest Herring.

Continue:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...3&sid=aIpLc56j...


Mek wi watch di Spinners twis up demself wid but dis an but dat...lol

[Muadib]

Yuh ah try hard.. di fact dat it haffi guh Supreme Court should be instructive (if yuh had any sense)

I posit this is the exception not the rule.requiring SPECIAL circumstances.. a far cry from 'ALL THE TIME'...

There is no "mistake" involved in the case at hand.. purposeful means employed that are unconstitutional.. google dat and come back to me..

[Don1]

yuh ah one real clown... nuh wonda One Liad ah yuh hero

Game..Set...Match.. case closed..

Now tap yuh foolfool yappin..

[Gamma]

WOW!!!! this is major from the us supreme court!!! it overrules a long line of cases!

this is big!

[Don1]

WOW!!!! this is major from the us supreme court!!! it overrules a long line of cases!

this is big!

Big Tings ah gwaan ah Babylon...dem ave terrorist fi ketch...an all ah wi get caught up inna dat matrix

[Gamma]

that one floored me ...... i wonder which way scalia and his shadow voted? hmmm

[Muadib]

how is that possible.. certain legal luminaries on di forum seh it happen all di time ..

lol !

[Gamma]

well it look like seh mi a nuh one! this is big news ... 5-4 is the slenderst of margins but, that is the ruling....i want to read that judgment.

[Gamma]

2009!!!??!!! a full 2 years ago? more WOW!!

[Gamma]

ok .... still is a big deal...but not as wide reaching as it initially sounded.

[Muadib]

How yuh mean..all di while dem kinda ting happen.. clerical error leading to discovery..

Man accidentaly refer to di wrong MOU..

[Gamma]

[Muadib]

lol !!

Man a bawl fi game dun.. yuh si yuh doom.. again..

yuh cyaan learn all now..

[Don1]

that one floored me ...... i wonder which way scalia and his shadow voted? hmmm

The Supreme Court in some past cases has applied the so- called exclusionary rule to illegally obtained evidence, barring its use at trial. The court has restricted use of the exclusionary rule under Roberts and his predecessor as chief justice, William Rehnquist.

Not Deliberate

“As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence,” Roberts wrote. “The error in this case does not rise to that level.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy joined Roberts’s opinion.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented.

“Negligent recordkeeping errors by law enforcement threaten individual liberty, are susceptible to deterrence by the exclusionary rule and cannot be remedied effectively through other means,” Ginsburg wrote.

The case is Herring v. United States, 07-513.

[Jawge]

They had a talk show with retired detectives advising NYErs to be careful (say nothing until your lawyer is present) because cops are allowed to lie to you to obtain whatevr evidence they need.

The fulll response will soon appear from the US; my hunch is that the dudus saga is matter of national security and some people went too far with certain information. If one reads or listens to what went down with the MOUs, one can seee national security written all over it. Putting out corporations name and all is not good. Too many egos and everyone shall pay, mark my words.