4TH AMDT ALERT!/CASE LAW UPDATES (1/31/09)
CRIMINAL CASES
CIVIL CASES
Courtesy of Florida Law Weekly Subscriptions (800) 351-0917
*NYT: Justices Step Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling (Death of the Exclusionary Rule?)*
*Larry and the baby*
*Carter's first Super Bowl came with a high cost*
(courtesy of Stanton Kaplan)
*NY Appeals Court Affirms Jailing of State’s ‘Most Obnoxious Lawyer’*
*NYT: To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left*
*Observer: Satz was absent the day “Equal Justice Under Law” was taught in school*
*Food for Thought: Do the judges pay Bogenschutz enough?*
*Daily Pulp: Gunzburger explains why she wants judges to justify Pretrial*
(JAABLOG clarification: the wording of the amendment as passed
states "if the court releases an individual to the program who does
not meet the criteria...the program shall record the reasons for doing so."
Judges don't have to write anything out, meaning it is more than
likely that nothing is going to change).
*Herald: Curious jurors raise legal questions for criminal trials*
*Herald Editorial: Sick policy: Gassing mentally ill inmates*
Current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roberts (First US Sup. Court Justice to screw up the oath of office for the President) worked as a judicial clerk for then Chief Justice Rehnquist during the Nixon Administration. He was the first architect to propose eliminating the exclusionary rule. He basically wanted to throw out the 4th Amendment.
Did anyone here the rumor that Carl Rove's old man was actually a Nazi Officer in the German Army during WWII?
Please comment amongst yourselves.
He didn't want to "throw out the 4th Amendment." The idea that the 4th Amendment requires the exclusionary rule a remedy is a late 19th-century development, and the idea that the federal exclusionary rule is controlling on the states only goes back to Mapp and Terry. The idea that SOCIETY rather than individual law enforcement officers should be penalized for their misconduct, let alone for good-faith mistakes of law, is not a Fourth Amendment that Madison would've recognized. The basic premise of Mapp, that supressing evidence changes police behavior, is demonstrably false: other remedies such as exposing departments to unlimited civil liability (piercing sovereign immunity) and officers to mandatory administrative penalties (leading up to being discharged without pay, benefits or pension) would undoubtedly be more effective, and would also not result in the factually guilty being let free upon the public.
It's academic with respect to state criminal proceedings in Florida, anyway, since the exclusionary rule is written into the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the defense bar's absolute control of the criminal procedure rules committee means that'll never change, regardless of what happens at the federal level.
It won't be academic if it changes at the US Supreme Court. Forced change will eventually trickle down everywhere. Especially conservative Tallahassee.
The Republicans have done it to themselves. Pretty soon I wouldn't be surprised if we have a Third Parry that completely eclipses any efforts of the Republican Party to make a come back ever.
These Broward Commissioners should be ashamed of themselves for falling under the sway of the likes of Book and other lobbyists. This is going to cost Broward Tax Payers big time and the rest of it is just excuses. Watch who Book contributes to when the commissioners run for re-election. This political back slapping and palm greasing needs to stop. Broward seems to be the worst of the counties in South Florida for this type of thing.
If I understand the "JAABLOG Clarification" correctly, then kudos to Commissioner Gunsberger for that pretty smart move. Her amendment undermined the bail bondsmen's plan to cut back pre-trial release and Book and the others didn't even realize it at the time.