The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
So is the Fourth Amendment dead now?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 23rd, 2016 12:03 PM Author: Green point (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30770753) |
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:11 PM Author: slippery jap property Just the exclusionary rule.
Honestly, given the unpalatable effects of the exclusionary rule, this development will probably actually help the 4th Am. |
 |
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:15 PM Author: Green point So what's the remedy for a breach of the Fourth Amendment now? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771325) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:16 PM Author: lemon disgusting field Having your facebook wall blown up by raging "constitutional scholars". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771335) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:18 PM Author: Green point seems unduly CRUEL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771353) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:23 PM Author: slippery jap property 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771388) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:30 PM Author: Green point Super shitty remedy though right? Those are very difficult cases to bring and take forever, IIRC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771427) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:41 PM Author: slippery jap property I've brought many. The cops have what's called qualified immunity -- which is a bullshit piece of conservative judicial activism that never existed before 1983's passage and doesn't appear in the statutory text -- which means they can only get sued for violations of "clearly established" federal law, which in practice means you need a CoA case with your facts. They can also interlocutorily appeal denial of QA up to 3 time during the case, which draws it out and all but ensures your plaintiff will wind up picking up a few felonies in the interim.
But for your run-of-the-mill police brutality case, it works well. There's also an automatic one-sided (plaintiff-only) prevailing-party attorney-fee provision. |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:16 PM Author: Aromatic Splenetic Market nah ding man, the ruling is not to kill fruit of the poisoned tree but to support inevitability doctrine, remember that this was "what if you pull them over illegally but it turns out they have a warrant out for their arrest" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771333) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:18 PM Author: Green point explain this to me like I'm a transactional attorney who hasn't thought about the fourth amendment since law school (please) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771349) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:23 PM Author: idiotic locus indirect expression cops can do whatever the fuck they want. 4th amendment is dead and has been dead for 50 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771389) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:25 PM Author: Apoplectic cerebral macaca cruise ship this is what the newly "liberal" supreme court hands down (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3263908&forum_id=2#30771397) |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:29 PM Author: abusive den sound barrier the newest case siefert did this overzealous cop stops person without sufficient cause = illegal stop while illegal stop, it was not flagrantly illegal if this same cop then searches vehicle and finds illegal stuff, it hopefully will still be considered fruit of the poisonous tree and stopped person will get off however, what happened in this case was that cop ran a check of stopped person and discovered an existing warrant. now a subsequent search of this stopped person's vehicle will not be deemed unreasonable because it falls within the attenuation doctrine. the existing warrant justifies the search at this point |
|
Date: June 23rd, 2016 1:26 PM Author: slippery jap property I'm talking about the general trend in every case since Hudson v. Michigan, which itself was also an unspectacular holding, but was when they started the trend of justifying expanding exceptions to the exclusionary rule by relying on rationales that apply just as strongly against having the Rule in the first place.
It's gotten to where you know how an exclusionary rule case is gonna end up before you see the slip op. |