That's the most retarded thing I've read in this thread.

I agree.  Depending on how fast the detective can type and how good their go-by is (and if the judge is awake) it should've taken about two hours from start to finish.

Yet, they didn't.

Does anyone have the full doc?

Yep.

This is fucking insane. I have NO faith in feds AT ALL anymore.

The case name is USA v.    Paul Huskisson

The decision was based on Supreme Court precedence and the independent source doctrine. Which is a type of inevitable discovery

Read the full PDF, not that mad

Can a rapist use this as a defense? He was going to ask her out any way and she would inevitably have said yes.

To make sure we know our place?

Txl

To have a legal reason to throw the little people in prison.....welcome to neo-feudal America dude....

And they treat us like this when we're armed....imagine if we were disarmed like liberals dream about

So much other evidence????

Then toss out the illegally obtained evidence from the house.  Uphold the Damn letter of the law.

Txl

Uh, not.

Definitely not.

Anarcho-tyranny up in this bitch.

That BS will get over turned for sure. That is a crap ruling.

So the process is now:
Plan to apply for a warrant
Carry out the search

Nothing found - no need to bother a judge with the warrant application
Something found - apply for the warrant only when you found something good.

Think of the saving in time and effort for LEOs and judges with this outstanding new process. Violating people's rights has never been more efficient.

The court literally admitted they entered illegally, in those words.

They just didn’t give a shit.

What ever happened to the 4th, and fruit of the forbidden tree

The extremely fast and loose backdooring of constitutional rights is really disturbing. Metadata, redflag laws, DNA sweeps, the spearfish device, etc is getting ridiculous. It's time for a major scaling back of the patriot act, and the bullshit they are doing.

<===============

Been that way for awhile.

Txl

All discovery is inevitable once you’ve already found it.

Legal doesn't always mean right or wrong.   There's been a lot of time and money invested in diminishing the bill of rights at all levels.

But it's pretty clear I'm pissing up a rope at this point.

itsalivingdocumentyoushirtlord.jpg

You are way off base. They violated the 4th amendment. Cut and fuckin dry. When they violate you up and down the amendments list I'll make sure to reserve judgement as well.

That judge is a fucking idiot.  The 4th Amendment is clear. A warrant based upon probable cause must issue from a judge (unless there is an exception) for the search to be lawful.

Here, the judge admitted the entry was illegal. She's putting the cart before the horse with her "so much other PC" bullshit.

Disgraceful.

Here's a link to the full opinion: U.S. v. Huskisson.

Here's the Reader's Digest version of the facts. The defendant, Huskisson, was an Indianapolis drug dealer who sold meth by the pound. He came to the DEA's attention after they arrested another man, Hardy, for drug and gun offenses. To save his own skin, Hardy informed on Huskisson and allowed the DEA to secretly record 9 of their telephone calls, during which they set up a transaction involving 10+ pounds of meth. The DEA followed Hardy to Huskisson's house, where the buy was to take place. Hardy went inside and when he came back out, he gave a pre-arranged signal that the meth was in there. The DEA then entered the house, searched it, found the meth, and applied for a warrant only afterwards.

The defendant, the prosecution, the District Court, and the Seventh Circuit all agreed that the DEA's entry was illegal. But the Seventh Circuit held that didn't matter, and the evidence obtained through the illegal entry was admissible, because the DEA could have obtained a warrant before the raid had it chosen to seek one.

There's no question about that last part. Based on the information provided by Hardy and the recorded telephone calls, there was probable cause to apply for a search warrant and it would have been granted. The point of contention is whether that fact justifies the admission of evidence obtained through the illegal entry.

I don't practice criminal law and don't stay on top of developments in this field. But the very idea that law enforcement can blow off the Fourth Amendment with zero consequence, because they hypothetically could have done something they were required to do but didn't, is wrong and scary. There is little incentive for the government to comply with the Constitution if admitted and knowing violations are excused.

This all stems from a 1984 Supreme Court decision holding that the purpose of the exclusionary rule (whereby illegally-obtained evidence is not admissible in a criminal case) is to put "the police in the same, not a worse, position than they would have been in if no police error had occurred." In both our civil and criminal justice systems, no one but the government gets the benefit of that thinking. It's kind of like saying, "I did steal my neighbor's car, but I could have asked him to borrow it and he would have said yes, so I'm not guilty of theft." See how far that gets you.

There is a "no harm, no foul" principle of law relating to the prejudice (or lack thereof) suffered by a party complaining about something that shouldn't have happened. But generally speaking, the law does not recognize the defense of "I acted unlawfully but I didn't have to". Why law enforcement alone should be able to invoke that defense is beyond me, and I can't imagine why any law enforcement agency would be motivated to follow the Constitution if a handful of people clad in black robes are willing to cover for them if they don't.

Only if he was acting as an agent of the government at the time. Little people go to jail.

Was the rule of law dead before the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine was created by the courts and decades later (finally) applied to the states?

We have never been a nation of equal application of the law.  This ruling though is particularly egregious.

Close enough I guess. It's like taking a test with the answer sheet.

To keep you in line.

So I can have NFA items now, as long as I plan to submit the paperwork later?

Are you retarded?

Was the "poisoned tree" doctrine arrived at arbitrarily, or did it come about for specific, legitimate reasons?

Does thinking such as this in judicial circles indicate that the rule of law is thriving, or on life support?

If that's allowed to stand....it's dangerous as hell.

If they saw drugs in plain view before the raid, a warrant would be unnecessary and the court wouldn't have had to rule on it.

Keeping thinking the Courts will save you on the 2A. They won't

At the end of the day only 1 thing is the definitive savoir of the 2A and liberty.

Relax, this will be reversed on appeal as it should be.

Here we find someone that doesn’t understand the law.  A warrant is not needed for those cases you describe.  A warrant is not always needed to enter a house - example - a cop sees a pile of meth inside.  He legally can now enter the house without the owners agreement.

If they had such fantastic evidence, why would they need to not follow the law for the search warrant?

Judge must like DEA blow jobs.

Maybe he should look up in the Websters dictionary the meaning of the word ''judge.'' Because he damn well wasn't acting like one.

The full story is that this was an admitted illegal search. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

Where's that line written in the 4th Amendment ? I'm having trouble finding it.

Well stated.

Go look at every 4A case he's been on. He sides with the police 95% of the time. He is a consistent anti-4A vote. He's a constitutional originalist, EXCEPT that part.

Two hours if you take the time to warm up the ol' IBM Selectric typewriter. eWarrants or telephone calls can handle that process within minutes.

"All agree: the DEA entry team entered Huskisson's house unlawfully" One should stop right there and ask the question why have the DEA agents that did this unlawful act not been charged? The answer is clear, government people are above the law.

You didn't know?  This is the New 4th Amendment:

It's a better practice that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  Void if prohibited by law.