That it was 5-4, is Scary!

[Diuretic]

..........


MEAN anything but you have to have a warrant to search. Scalia to this day does not believe in the exclusionary rule. He thinks that evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment should still be admitted and then the convict can sue the officer for violating his constitutional rights, they be pulling all the teeth from the 4th amendment and making it a worthless amendment except that AFTER THE FACT a person can sue.

...........

That's interesting. As you would be aware, the exclusionary rule is used by courts to regulate police behaviour. Unlike the system in, for example, France, where examining magistrates supervise police in serious criminal investigations, common law countries rely on the courts to make police misbehaviour not worthwhile because unfairly obtained evidence is likely to be ruled inadmissible.

I don't understand Scalia's cavalier attitude.

 

[Diuretic]

I think, Dixie, that you're trying to use a post-facto justification. The point is at the time the officer decided to conduct the search, was there probable cause? That's the question. It doesn't matter if the officer found something or not. If the office found something then its admissibility will be decided by the court based on whether or not there was probable cause.

Now, having said that I have to say that the situation in Australia is a bit different. There is much judicial discretion as to whether or not evidence that is unfairly obtained is admitted. The judge has to balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial value. The judge also has to think that he or she is in a position to influence police behaviour. I can tell you that police will quickly look at a decision that seems to favour their actions as being a licence to repeat those actions.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I have not stated otherwise, I understand the law. I am merely stating the obvious here, if a search (lawful or not) produced evidence, isn't the evidence proof of 'probable cause' in a purely logical sense? Doesn't the evidence found in the search affirm the original suspicion? I know it doesn't legally justify the unlawful search, that is not what I am saying. We must maintain reasonable cause for search and seizure, pursuant to the 4th Amendment, no argument from me on that.

Dixie you're rambling in circles, you know as much about law as you do science and it's all ready established your woe fully uninformed on science.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You're clearly no lawyer, Dix.

That's simply not true.

I have a friend who's ultra conservative (more correctly a reactionary) like Dixie. He was called for jury duty on a grand larceny case. He hanged the jury and a retrial was called cause though there was a lack of evidence in the case and reasonable doubt existed his absolutely stubborn rational was "If he wasn't guilty, they wouldn't have charged him.". When I asked him about the presumption of innocence he said, and Dixie would have been proud. "He was presumed innocent until they charged him, why would they charge him if they didn't think he was guilty?"

This is why I freaked out earlier when Dixie opened this sig with a rant. He didn't care so much about our 2nd amendment rights so much as he is using it to make an ad-homin attacks against liberals. Hell he's supported every erosion and violation of our rights by this present administration that's come down the pike but he's all for protecting our 2nd ammendment rights, for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, it's true, you are just having a hard time comprehending me. Think slowly about it for a moment, don't try to read things into what I post, and let it sink in, it's really quite simple.

IF I have probable cause, which leads me to search you for drugs, and I do find drugs, it confirms my belief in the probability of the cause. The cause is no longer probable, it has been established and validated, you did indeed have drugs as my once 'probable' cause led me to believe. You simply can't provide a logical argument to the contrary, because it would defy reason. You may argue that I never had probable cause, and I have never opposed such an argument, but if I had probable cause, and it turns up the evidence expected, it confirms the cause to believe and it is no longer a probability.

I don't understand why this is such a hard point to make with you guys, it seems fairly easy to me. It also seems you want to argue against rational logic. The very word "evidence" comes from "evident" as in... it is EVIDENT the suspicions based on probable cause were accurate and the search was justified. I think you are misinterpreting something I've said, or think I meant something else, and if that is the case, I am sorry you misunderstood me.

Dixie, you make people want to bang there head on the wall with your obtuseness.

What you don't get is that we live by the rule of law and not the rule of Dixie. In other words we have due process. Due process ensures that the rule of law is adhered to and the rights of individuals are protected. Your probable cause argument is specious at best because in the vast over whelming majority of cases due process can occur and a warrant can be issued. The question here is one of "unreasonableness". Is establishing cause after the fact unreasonable? Yes it is. Is justifying probable cause with out due process unreasonable? In most cases, yes it is. In cases where probable cause exist is it practicable for due process to occur? With few exceptions it certainly is. Does excluding evidence gained with out due process of law protect our individual rights and liberties from a police state? It sure as hell does.

Dixie what you don't get is that our rights are not there to protect government or society. They are there to protect each one of us, as individuals, from the excesses and abuse of power by government and society.

 

[tinfoil]

LOL dixie

WTF? If I have probable cause and it proves probable, what's the cause?

 

[Socrtease]

I had to read this WHOLE thing before I could see where I wanted to go with it. Let's see, Dixie believes that if a police officer has probable cause to believe that the fruits of a crime can be found in place A and he searches place A and finds fruits of a crime, then he indeed had probable cause and therefore is vindicated. SO it must logically follow that if he does not find anything then he didn't have probable cause? Except of course that is not what ANY of this means. Probable cause is not a hunch. It is not a gut feeling. Probable cause in relation to search and seizure means

a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. Sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants.

A search is NEVER justified by what it finds. The justification must ALWAYS come first. When applying for a search warrant the officer must explain what investigation he has already done, reliablity of information he has received and the reliability of the person or persons that the officer has received it from. Police are ALL THE TIME going to serve a search warrant based on probable cause and find nothing. That does NOT make their probable cause any less valid.

Now for a funny coincidence in relation to a search warrant. My local metro narcotics unit sought and obtained a warrant to search for drugs. The DA that is supposed to verify all of that did not do a good job and the warrant was served on a completely innocent house. And the real irony in all this is that it was served on the house of an Assistant US Attorney named Wong. So they served it on the Wong House.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Now for a funny coincidence in relation to a search warrant. My local metro narcotics unit sought and obtained a warrant to search for drugs. The DA that is supposed to verify all of that did not do a good job and the warrant was served on a completely innocent house. And the real irony in all this is that it was served on the house of an Assistant US Attorney named Wong. So they served it on the Wong House.

ROTFLMAO....I think the irony here will be waste on Dixie......not to mention your logic.

 

[Good Luck]

The part of speech makes all the difference. The anti-gun crowd focuses on the word "militia" because it is a noun which seems to contradict individuality. In context, with the other words used in the amendment, it is clear the noun is used in addition to the individual right. This nullifies their argument, but that is why they remain focused on a single word. I have not focused on a single word, I merely pointed out the adjective which describes the condition for search and seizure. This was stated in response to the argument that any and all searches and seizures are unconstitutional without a warrant, which is incorrect. I didn't place a limit on protection from unreasonable searches, I don't know how you got that from anything I said. I did indeed point out, there is a limit on your freedoms, in every instance. As well there should be.




Well now, here you just outright say what you think without any rationalization. I have not used "probable cause" as a synonym for anything! I fully understand what probable cause is. Again, you seem to want me to be saying things I haven't said, just for the sake of making yourself right. I am sorry, but I can't oblige. Finding evidence does indeed confirm the probable cause which justified the search to begin with. It is illogical to conclude anything else. If I have reason to believe you are hiding a dead body in your basement, and I get a warrant to search and do find a dead body in your basement, my original reason to believe this is confirmed.



Again, for the last time, please stop claiming I have made statements I haven't made and trying to argue against a point I have not made! You are really starting to piss me off and you sound retarded. I understand what the law says, and I understand what the Constitution says, it doesn't say that any of us have protection against any and all searches reasonable or not, without a warrant first being obtained, it just doesn't say that, mean that, or intend to mean that, and never has. You explained it here very precisely, so I know you understand this, which is why it's puzzling me that you want to argue about this.




Once again, for the slow minded... I have never stated that probable cause could be established retroactively, or that justification doesn't have to precede the search, or that the standards are not the same. These are things I think you wish I had said, and would like to believe I said, so that you can win your argument, but I have not argued these points. Frankly, they are ignorant of the law, and utterly stupid.



If you want to read things into what I said, that is fine. I never made such a statement. The end (finding evidence) confirms the probable cause, which justifies the search. What you are trying to distill from my comments is; We don't need to have probable cause at all, we can search and seize whatever we want and if we find something, there is no violation of constitutional rights. That IS NOT WHAT I HAVE EVER SAID! I am really really sorry I can't make my words mean what you want them to mean, or turn my argument into some extremist unreasonable view you can bash on here, I hate it for you!

So what IS your argument? You keep pointing out that we are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Then you keep saying that results "confirm probable cause and logically "justify the search". I can point out several places where you say exactly that. I already showed you one quote directly from your post that says it justifies any search.

You argument is either circular, or you are trying to justify warrantless searches that do not meet the standard of probable cause. You claim you are not doing the latter, so why bother pointing out the language of the 4th amendment at all? Few here are unaware of what the 4th amendment says, and what the 4th amendment means.

So, let's try to establish exactly what it is you do mean with all your rhetoric.
Do you agree with the following principle of the 4th amendment?

1) The people are protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

2) Reasonable search and seizure is defined as a search which takes place under the limitations defined for providing a warrant, where justification for the search is established prior to the search.

3) Probable cause, which allows for a search without warrant under certain limited circumstances, must still meet the standards of a search warrant, and must be established prior to the search.

4) Finding evidence during a search does not justify the search, but does verify the suspicions which, through either applying for a warrant, or through the use of probable cause, led to the search taking place.

5) However, despite the protection of the 4th amendment against unreasonable search, if an unreasonable search turns up evidence, then the evidence still verifies the suspicion which led to the search, and is therefore justified.

Is that an accurate summary of what you are saying about the meaning of the 4th amendment and it application to law?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A search is NEVER justified by what it finds. The justification must ALWAYS come first. When applying for a search warrant the officer must explain what investigation he has already done, reliablity of information he has received and the reliability of the person or persons that the officer has received it from. Police are ALL THE TIME going to serve a search warrant based on probable cause and find nothing. That does NOT make their probable cause any less valid.

One more time I must repeat this, because apparently you have not read it the first 5 times I've said it... I DO NOT THINK PROBABLE CAUSE IS ESTABISHED POST-FACTO! Here, let me say it again in the same paragraph... I DO NOT THINK PROBABLE CAUSE IS ESTABISHED POST-FACTO! Do you understand and comprehend what I am saying? Are the words too much for you to grasp? I can't put it any other way, or say it any differently, I DO NOT THINK PROBABLE CAUSE IS ESTABISHED POST-FACTO!

Now, perhaps you pinheads can come to the realization you are shaddow arguing here, I have never taken the position you are arguing against! I understand what probable cause is, I understand it is not the same as a hunch or suspicion, and I understand it can't be established after the fact. None of these things have I argued, and I have more than gone out of my way to make that clear, but it's like you don't hear me or something, you all just keep reverting back to the same idiotic point to argue against. I guess this is how so many of you think you've beaten me in debate, you never understood the argument to begin with.

All I have said is, probable cause is confirmed with the finding of evidence. Didn't say probable cause was not valid if you didn't find evidence, only that it is confirmed if you do. If I have probable cause to believe something, and it turns out to be true, then the cause is no longer probable it is legitimate. Again, it doesn't mean it's not legitimate if you didn't find something. It was still probable, and the search was still justified.

What you all seem to be wanting me to say is, probable cause is a feeling and if you are right it doesn't matter what your 'probable cause' was, it was justifiable. This is NOT what I have argued, as much as you might like to make it that. As for Mott's continual ranting and bashing, I have put him on the ignore list again, I don't have time to read bullshit unrelated to the topic.

 

[Good Luck]

Assuming the above is an accurate summation of your views of the 4th amendment, then I still disagree with point 5.

Evidence gained through an unreasonable (ie: unconstitutional/illegal) search is not justified under any circumstances.

A thief (if caught) is not allowed to benefit from the fruits of their illegal activities. It would be grossly unfair to the victims of the criminal if they were allowed to keep and/or benefit from the results of their crime. If criminals were allowed to benefit from their crime, even if they get caught, the crime rate would explode above our current ridiculous levels.

In balance, neither should the law (ie: society) be allowed to benefit from the fruits of an illegal search, illegally conducted interrogation, or any other activities which illegally violate our constitutional protections. If the law were allowed to benefit from illegal activities, then those illegal activities would increase exponentially, and innocent people would become victims.

THAT is the basis for the exclusionary rule. It is not the result of judicial activism, but rather a logical extension of the purpose of a criminal justice system in a democratic society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So what IS your argument? You keep pointing out that we are only protected from "unreasonable" searches. Then you keep saying that results "confirm probable cause and logically "justify the search". I can point out several places where you say exactly that. I already showed you one quote directly from your post that says it justifies any search.

PROBABLE CAUSE JUSTIFIES ANY SEARCH! That is ALL I am saying! If you indeed have probable cause, whether you've obtained a warrant or not, you can search. The 4th Amendment protects you from being searched unreasonably, which would be WITHOUT probable cause.

Think of the term "probable cause" and what it means. You are saying you have cause to believe something that is very probable. If what you believe is confirmed, what does it do for the "probability" of your cause to believe? How can it do anything other than verify and validate your belief in the probability of cause? Is the belief still only probable, or is the belief confirmed by the finding of what you believed was probable? If you found drugs in the house, you can't say he 'probably' had drugs in the house, it has been established and is no longer a probability. I really can't break it down any simpler than that. If you guys don't understand plain English, I can't help you.

I am not making some ridiculous argument as you seem to believe, and I have done all I can think of to illustrate my point, which is very simple and logical. I made this simple point after someone attempted to shift the topic off the SCOTUS 5-4 finding on the 2nd Amendment. So, I am beginning to wonder if you all don't fully understand what I have said, and this is just your continued attempt to keep the topic of the thread at bay.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Assuming the above is an accurate summation of your views of the 4th amendment, then I still disagree with point 5.

Well that is good, I disagree with YOUR point 5 as well. I never said that. The post does illustrate how far out of your way you are going to make me argue something I haven't argued. I don't get it, can you not win debates any other way or something?

Let's have an example here, because I don't know how else to explain my position. Say I am a cop, and I see you motoring down the highway in your tricked out pimpmobile on 22's, and I say to myself... you know? he probably has drugs in the car, because most people who drive pimpmobiles are druggies! Well, THAT is my probable cause, so I pull you over and search your car... lo and behold, I find drugs in your car. My probable cause, regardless of whether it is legally valid, is still confirmed by the finding of drugs in your car. It doesn't mean I had legitimate probable cause for the search, and you would likely have a counter-suit against me and the police department for violation of your 4th Amendment rights. It still doesn't mean my probable cause was not confirmed, it just means it wasn't legal. On the other hand, same scenario, except you are weaving and driving erratically, and on this basis I determine it is probable you are driving under the influence of something, and this is my probable cause, your 4th Amendment rights have not been violated, because I had legitimate and legal probable cause to pull you over and search your car for drugs.

 

[a11n]

When he reaches the gates of Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell, 'One more soldier reporting, sir... I've served my time in hell

 

[Cancel3]

PROBABLE CAUSE JUSTIFIES ANY SEARCH! That is ALL I am saying! If you indeed have probable cause, whether you've obtained a warrant or not, you can search. The 4th Amendment protects you from being searched unreasonably, which would be WITHOUT probable cause.

Think of the term "probable cause" and what it means. You are saying you have cause to believe something that is very probable. If what you believe is confirmed, what does it do for the "probability" of your cause to believe? How can it do anything other than verify and validate your belief in the probability of cause? Is the belief still only probable, or is the belief confirmed by the finding of what you believed was probable? If you found drugs in the house, you can't say he 'probably' had drugs in the house, it has been established and is no longer a probability. I really can't break it down any simpler than that. If you guys don't understand plain English, I can't help you.

I am not making some ridiculous argument as you seem to believe, and I have done all I can think of to illustrate my point, which is very simple and logical. I made this simple point after someone attempted to shift the topic off the SCOTUS 5-4 finding on the 2nd Amendment. So, I am beginning to wonder if you all don't fully understand what I have said, and this is just your continued attempt to keep the topic of the thread at bay.

The trick here is to have probably cause that you can demonstrate and document. Otherwise, the simple statement of probable cause is abused.

 

[Good Luck]

Well that is good, I disagree with YOUR point 5 as well. I never said that. The post does illustrate how far out of your way you are going to make me argue something I haven't argued. I don't get it, can you not win debates any other way or something?

Let's have an example here, because I don't know how else to explain my position. Say I am a cop, and I see you motoring down the highway in your tricked out pimpmobile on 22's, and I say to myself... you know? he probably has drugs in the car, because most people who drive pimpmobiles are druggies! Well, THAT is my probable cause, so I pull you over and search your car... lo and behold, I find drugs in your car. My probable cause, regardless of whether it is legally valid, is still confirmed by the finding of drugs in your car. It doesn't mean I had legitimate probable cause for the search, and you would likely have a counter-suit against me and the police department for violation of your 4th Amendment rights. It still doesn't mean my probable cause was not confirmed, it just means it wasn't legal. On the other hand, same scenario, except you are weaving and driving erratically, and on this basis I determine it is probable you are driving under the influence of something, and this is my probable cause, your 4th Amendment rights have not been violated, because I had legitimate and legal probable cause to pull you over and search your car for drugs.

Your examples are good examples of the difference between probable cause, and suspicion. You can not have "illegal probable cause". Probable cause is a legal phrase with a specific meaning, not just the words "probable" and "cause" linked together in a common phrase. And there is the disconnect why you are being misunderstood. You are not using the phrase "probable cause" correctly.

But for your examples, yes in the first case the search was illegal. You did NOT have probable cause, all you had was your own prejudice about the habits of people who drive a certain style of vehicle. You found drugs, and that confirmed your suspicion about that driver, but it did not validate probable cause because you did not USE probable cause.

Now, my questions to you are:
1) Do you believe the results of illegal searches should be allowed as criminal evidence?
2) Do you believe finding drugs justified the search, even though the search was illegal?

If you believe it should be used, then that is what the argument is about. You still believe that the ends justifies the means if illegal searches can result in valid criminal evidence. You may not like it being phrased that way, but ultimately that is the end meaning of allowing society to benefit from illegal activity.

If you do not believe it should be used, then you are expressing yourself very poorly, since that is what people are arguing against.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your examples are good examples of the difference between probable cause, and suspicion. You can not have "illegal probable cause". Probable cause is a legal phrase with a specific meaning, not just the words "probable" and "cause" linked together in a common phrase. And there is the disconnect why you are being misunderstood. You are not using the phrase "probable cause" correctly.

I'm sorry, but you can't simply run away from the meaning of words because you don't like the meaning. I have not misused the phrase "probable cause." There is a disconnect because you refuse to accept what I have said and continue to try and argue that I said something else. And yes, you can claim probable cause incorrectly, which makes it "illegal probable cause" from a technical standpoint. If you just want to argue about something, that is fine, just tell me you need something insignificant to argue about and nit-pick, I can understand. Probable cause has been incorrectly established a number of times, it is well documented in case law, and to pretend it has never happened or can't happen, is ignorant of fact.

Now, my questions to you are:
1) Do you believe the results of illegal searches should be allowed as criminal evidence?
2) Do you believe finding drugs justified the search, even though the search was illegal?

1) No, never claimed otherwise.
2.) No, never claimed otherwise.

If you believe it should be used, then that is what the argument is about. You still believe that the ends justifies the means if illegal searches can result in valid criminal evidence. You may not like it being phrased that way, but ultimately that is the end meaning of allowing society to benefit from illegal activity.

If you do not believe it should be used, then you are expressing yourself very poorly, since that is what people are arguing against.

It appears YOU are the only one arguing, and I have pointed out the past three posts, that you are arguing with yourself, because I have agreed with you the whole time. I think what is happening is, you are reading poorly. You are too stubborn to realize no one is arguing the point you are trying to argue, and instead of letting it go, you continue to act as if I am arguing against you.

A few points... My only statement is to the logical fact of matter, if probable cause leads to evidence found, the evidence found confirms the probable cause. It doesn't justify a search, the probable cause justifies the search, but it does confirm the probable cause.

A thief (if caught) is not allowed to benefit from the fruits of their illegal activities. It would be grossly unfair to the victims of the criminal if they were allowed to keep and/or benefit from the results of their crime. If criminals were allowed to benefit from their crime, even if they get caught, the crime rate would explode above our current ridiculous levels.

In balance, neither should the law (ie: society) be allowed to benefit from the fruits of an illegal search, illegally conducted interrogation, or any other activities which illegally violate our constitutional protections.

Point of contention with a previous point you tried to make... The 4th Amendment is not provided for the sake of balance because we disallow convicts to profit from their crime. It is a fundamental Constitutional right to prevent undue search and seizure, and has nothing to do with punishment of criminals or what they are not entitled to. If you believe this to be the case, you are absolutely wrong.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The trick here is to have probably cause that you can demonstrate and document. Otherwise, the simple statement of probable cause is abused.

Actually, law enforcement is given great latitude in determining probable cause. This is why it is important to prosecute cases where abuse takes place. You must consider the billions of scenarios, many of them 'life or death' where an officer must take action based on his or her 'probable cause' to believe a crime is being committed, or about to be committed. A tremendous number of drug busts and drug raids are the result of 'probable cause' via an informant who wishes to remain anonymous.... a snitch. These arrests are made, and the evidence is presented to a court and the case decided, happens every day. Your 4th Amendment rights do not give you protection against REASONABLE searches and seizures.

 

[Good Luck]

I'm sorry, but you can't simply run away from the meaning of words because you don't like the meaning. I have not misused the phrase "probable cause." There is a disconnect because you refuse to accept what I have said and continue to try and argue that I said something else. And yes, you can claim probable cause incorrectly, which makes it "illegal probable cause" from a technical standpoint. If you just want to argue about something, that is fine, just tell me you need something insignificant to argue about and nit-pick, I can understand. Probable cause has been incorrectly established a number of times, it is well documented in case law, and to pretend it has never happened or can't happen, is ignorant of fact.

You misuse the term probable cause in several posts. I do not know whether it is because you do not understand the concept of probable cause, or whether you disagree with the legal definition of probable cause. You even tried to base the definition of probable cause on the individual meanings of the two words in the phrase. Then in another post you try to claim that results prove probable cause.

Then you agree with me. Sorry. Results ARE proof of probable cause, they can't logically not be! The law enforcement officer "had reason to believe" and the finding of the evidence confirms his reasonable beliefs.

That makes it obvious you are not clear what the legal term means, or how it is applied. An officer can have probable cause, and find nothing. Or an officer can not have probable cause, and find incriminating evidence. Probable cause is entirely independent of results. Probable cause is neither proven, nor disproven by the results of a search.

There is no such thing as "illegal probable cause" neither technically or otherwise. If a suit over wrongful search is dismissed, the reason given is the officer has probable cause for the search. When a judge throws out evidence gained through an illegal search, the reason given is "the officer did not have probable cause". Probable cause either exists, thus justifying a warrantless search, or it does not exist, and the warrantless search is unconstitutional.

An officer may believe they do have probable cause, and be mistaken. That does not make their probable cause illegal or invalid. They simply did not have probable cause, but mistakenly believed they did.

Now, my questions to you are:
1) Do you believe the results of illegal searches should be allowed as criminal evidence?

1) No, never claimed otherwise.

1) So can I assume you agree with the exclusionary rule? Then why have you stated that "This is why it is important to prosecute cases where abuse takes place."? Or are you talking about prosecuting the officer when abuse takes place?

2) Do you believe finding drugs justified the search, even though the search was illegal?

2.) No, never claimed otherwise.

yes, you did claim exactly that.
From post #36:

I think if you study the text, you will realize the framers intent, and it wasn't to allow people to avoid prosecution of the law. If it is not reasonable for someone to be searched without warrant, I agree with you, but there are instances where such searches are certainly reasonable and justified. If the search reveals evidence, it is obvious the search was justified, isn't it?

Right there in the bold, in your own words. IF the search reveals evidence THEN the search was justified. The only way that statement can be taken is that the existence of evidence justifies the search.

Then from post #46:

"I never stated that evidence "justified" probable cause, it does, however, "confirm" or "reaffirm" probable cause and justifies any search based on that probable cause."

Those are YOUR exact words, and unlike the quotes you post from my writings, has not been conveniently truncated to change the meaning. (I did leave out the "what crack are you smoking" part) You say quite clearly that evidence does not justify probable cause, but it DOES justify "any search based on that probable cause." How else is that statement supposed to be takeen except that you believe evidence justifies the search?

Point of contention with a previous point you tried to make... The 4th Amendment is not provided for the sake of balance because we disallow convicts to profit from their crime. It is a fundamental Constitutional right to prevent undue search and seizure, and has nothing to do with punishment of criminals or what they are not entitled to. If you believe this to be the case, you are absolutely wrong.

I did not say the 4th amendment provides a balance against criminals gaining from their activities. I said the exclusionary rule provides the balance based on the fact that the 4th amendment makes unreasonable search and seizure illegal. The balance provided is that there is a CONSEQUENCE for law enforcement violating the 4th amendment which prevents law enforcement from any realizing any gains derived from illegal/unconstitutional activity.

Without some sort of consequence enacted on the actions of the government, then none of our rights are truly protected. We see that on a daily basis when governments violate the 2nd and other amendments as a regular practice. Because there is no associated consequence for their actions, they are free to make any law they want. With the exception of the exclusionary rule, the only consequence of an unconstitutional action or law written by the government is the law may be overturned.

It is only by providing for a consequence that allows the 4th amendment to functionally protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. If we had similar consequences for the violation of the other amendments, we would see a lot fewer laws and actions that violate our constitutional rights.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Those are YOUR exact words, and has not been conveniently truncated to change the meaning. What does that sentence mean? You say evidence does not justify probable cause, but it DOES justify "any search based on that probable cause." So you DO claim that evidence justifies a search.

Look idiot, you can read into it whatever you like, it simply doesn't say what you want to claim. I stated correctly, evidence confirms probable cause, which is the justification for the search. I never said the evidence justifies the search. If you are too ignorant to grasp plain English, you should try www.sesamestreet.com, they have nice picture puzzles you can do.

1) yes you did, and is the very basis of your complaint about "judicial activism" with respect to the 4th amendment. You do not like the exclusionary rule, and believe the exclusionary rule to be an example of judicial activism. You have also stated, in this thread, more than once that cases which involve illegal search and seizure should still be prosecuted.

No, my argument of logical fact that probable cause is confirmed by evidence found, has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial activism, the exclusionary rule, or the 2nd Amendment. It is a simple statement of fact that you can not grasp or understand because you are apparently too stupid. I have never stated that unreasonable searches and seizures should even be allowed, much less have the evidence prosecuted, it is a violation of the 4th Amendment. Again, you must be too stupid to comprehend that point, I have made it a number of times now.

Judicial Activism is when a Supreme Court justice re-invents meanings that were never originally intended in the Constitution, and rules accordingly. It has become quite popular, and it allows a few men in black robes to determine our societal destiny, rather than WE THE PEOPLE doing it, as our founders intended.

2) yes, you did claim exactly that.
"I never stated that evidence "justified" probable cause, it does, however, "confirm" or "reaffirm" probable cause and justifies any search based on that probable cause."

Read it again, I did not claim what you say. In fact, I stipulated the exact opposite and confirmed this was not what I was ever saying, in the same sentence. I really don't know how much clearer it could be made. If you just want to deliberately lie and mislead people, that is fine, let's just be honest about what you are doing. I have only stated the obvious fact that evidence found, confirms or affirms the probable cause which was the justification for the search. The question of whether the 'probable cause' fits the legal criteria is not at issue, it may very well not fit the criteria of legal 'probable cause' and may in fact be mere speculation, but it still is confirmed or affirmed by the finding of evidence. Finding of evidence is not finding of cause, that is a different matter, and we are not arguing that point. You continue to try and associate my statement with Finding of Cause, and I have never made such a statement with regard to evidence found.

You have stated, there is a legal binding definition of "probable cause" and we can agree on this, but the impetus of what I am stating is simply a logical extension of that fact. If the cause beforehand is probable, it can't still be probable if predicted evidence is found, this defies logic and reason. When the predicted evidence is found, the 'probable cause' which was the justification for the search, is confirmed or affirmed, therefore, no longer merely 'probable'. Again, this is simple logic.