'Race bias' could free alleged drug dealer

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Let's see now. There are two problems here:

1. Criminal broke the law. Solution: Punish him.

2. Cop broke the law: Solution: Punish him.

Now where does letting the criminal loose have anything to do with prosecuting the cop for his alleged crime?

An unlawful search by a peace officer in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not a crime in any jurisdiction in the US.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Maybe or maybe not.

Depending on the size of the bag, the court might or might not have found the claim of the bag in the front on the driver's side floor credible.

Was the driver out of the vehicle? Did the cop have enough visibility of the floor to see the bag?

Or were there two bags in the trunk?

You could assume a frootloop judge, but the prosecutor apparently wasn't able to convince the judge of the probable cause, or perhaps the bag in the front wasn't cocaine and didn't convincingly look like cocaine?

Without the court transcripts and details on the exhibits, we can't tell, except the judge who has seen this stuff apparently doesn't buy the story.

Which is all precisely why I'll wait to see the details of the case from some other source besides WorldNetDaily.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


An unlawful search by a peace officer in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not a crime in any jurisdiction in the US.

Yeah I know. That is the problem.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Which is all precisely why I'll wait to see the details of the case from some other source besides WorldNetDaily.

They've just repackaged the story from the Boston Globe, who has essentially the same article. That good enough for ya?

[CygnusZ]

The problem is that it sets the precedent that someone can be prosecuted for a crime even if their civil rights are violated in the process. I'm not sure if the cop should be punished for doing his job, and I'm unsure about what the standard test for racial profiling is. Let's face it too, what people really want is the cop rewarded and the evildoer sent to the slammer.

But, it's more difficult than that. We can't just throw civil rights by the wayside when it fits our ends. Even if it means a bad guy gets off the hook. If behavior like that is rewarded, if civil rights can simply be set aside whenever the court decides it's ok, then there is a true loss of freedom. Not to sound cliche, but if a judge finds that there is a 4th Amendment violation he has to throw out the case. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, it would be wrong to reward anybody for anything accomplished by breaking that law.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


They've just repackaged the story from the Boston Globe, who has essentially the same article. That good enough for ya?

I don't think Boris will believe it until it comes out on Democrats.com

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
They've just repackaged the story from the Boston Globe, who has essentially the same article. That good enough for ya?

No, I'd actually like to read the BG article, not take your word for it. I'd also like to know more details about the case and exactly how the cops came to stop the guy and find the drugs.

[chequita guevara]

I really don't think we want to punish violations of 4th Amendment rights unless the behavior is flagrant. If it is, you can get them on a Federal violation of civil rights charge, like they did for the police who battered Rodney King.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't think Boris will believe it until it comes out on Democrats.com

Says the man who won't believe what scientists say because he prefers an Argument from Incredulity.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Then look the ****ing thing up. I didn't ask you to take my word for it, I just didn't feel like babysitting you with linky-poos I figure you could find all by your self if you really wanted to do something more than whine about the source Cali cited.

Sheeesh.

[Boris Godunov]

I'll note this article in the BG (hey, nice inits!):

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/09/19/judge_rules_suspect_must_stay_in_jail/

The same judge has ruled the suspect has to remain in jail for now. Note the D.A. hasn't decided whether or not to appeal. That doesn't bode well for how even he views the strength of the case in the face of the questions of how the evidence was obtained.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then look the ****ing thing up. I didn't ask you to take my word for it, I just didn't feel like babysitting you with linky-poos I figure you could find all by your self if you really wanted to do something more than whine about the source Cali cited.

Sheeesh.

As you can see above, I was looking it up. But the original article isn't there anymore, since it's a week old. So maybe, since you had referenced it, you knew where I could find it, you cranky old coot.

[chequita guevara]

coot?

[Boris Godunov]

Ooh, did I mispell coot?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I really don't think we want to punish violations of 4th Amendment rights unless the behavior is flagrant. If it is, you can get them on a Federal violation of civil rights charge, like they did for the police who battered Rodney King.

I never could understand the idea of punishing the cop by letting the criminal go free. The Rodney King case is a good example. I think if the cops break the law then they should be prosecuted like any other criminal.