Boots on the Ground Press–Los Angeles

An Editorial by C Jones

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution reads:

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 of things to be seized.

And, re-read that.

Now, let’s move on to the Associated Press article from 1/15/2009 titled “Court says evidence is valid despite police error” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_evidence).

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.

The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court’s so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.

The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.

Coffee County, Ala., sheriff’s deputies found amphetamines in Herring’s pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff’s computers had not been updated.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used “when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts.

In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling “leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights.”

In short, it’s okay for the police to keep that warrant on you that’s been recalled before and use it as an excuse to search you. Even though the warrant is not valid, and would have been their probable cause for a search, they can just search you anyway. Moreover, they are relying on a database that is NOT ACCURATE. So what if someone misspells the name of the person of the criminal in the database and ends up with YOUR NAME? What if the social security number is wrong and it’s YOU instead? What if the license plate number is yours instead? I mean, YOU may be a law abiding citizen, but their database says you’re not a law-abiding citizen so your Fourth Amendment NO LONGER APPLIES.

If having an inaccurate database is okay, and using that inaccurate database to justify your searches and seizures is okay, what’s going to keep the police from making sure that the database is inaccurate so that all of their searches and seizures are justified?

Planned stupidity seems to be the new ultimate liability cover and the end of your civil liberties.

—
C Jones is a Liberty loving writer and co-founder of Boots on the Ground–LA Press.