Most of the situations we're talking about already have exceptions within the law.

 

But if it really does come down to life or violation, then I'd imagine that officers will go for saving the life and dealing with the consequences as regards tainted evidence.

1) Who said there had to be tainted evidence?

2) Hindsight Quarterbacks would drag them through the mud afterwards

^ It happens. But if you're asking me to toss out the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, I'm going to need something a lot more compelling than what may appear to be a "simple question."

 

It's hard to strip someone of their rights. Always has been in this country. Always ought to be, even when innocent people sometimes come up on the wrong end of it.

Well that is kind of the reason the question is posed the way that it is...I'm not for any liberties being taken away from me or anyone else. But there seems to be some that want to never give up personal liberties for any reason and some that are ready to call in drone strikes on Eastern Ky Pot Growers.

 

So I will give a hypothetical...let's say evidence is gathered that says a man named Raul Quagmire Wilson is about to execute an attack at an unknown community event somewhere in Louisville. Investigators determine there are 5 Raul Quagmire Wilson's living in Jefferson County. Should all 5 be detained until the investigation is finalized determining which one is the correct Raul Quagmire Wilson even if it takes several days or weeks or should all be left free until the true one is determined even if that means he has time to carry out the attack.

 

Wouldn't someone's name be enough to send police/FBI to question Raul? If so, you question him. You certainly cannot detain him. Substitute "black guy" for Raul and what's your answer? Same question to me.

^ It happens. But if you're asking me to toss out the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, I'm going to need something a lot more compelling than what may appear to be a "simple question."

 

It's hard to strip someone of their rights. Always has been in this country. Always ought to be, even when innocent people sometimes come up on the wrong end of it.

I agree with you, just kinda asking questions from both sides.

1) Who said there had to be tainted evidence?

2) Hindsight Quarterbacks would drag them through the mud afterwards

 

As regards the first question: it's typically the consequence of a "rights violation" in a criminal case. To use your example: cop pulls over a car and busts open the trunk for no apparent reason. Finds a woman tied up in the trunk. Depending on the circumstances, the search may be deemed illegal and the evidence gathered from it inadmissible. The perp walks, but a life was saved so more than likely I'm not too mad at the cop as he did something that saved a life. Sometimes the guy walks; it happens.

Wouldn't someone's name be enough to send police/FBI to question Raul? If so, you question him. You certainly cannot detain him. Substitute "black guy" for Raul and what's your answer? Same question to me.

 

Yeah that's my question, you got 5 guys with the same name and have solid evidence that someone by that name is going to commit a heinous crime (blow up the Derby or 4th St in Louisville). How long could you hold all 5 of them if it meant saving lives of 1 to a 100 people while you try to sort out which one was the terrorist and none of them were willing to be cooperative. Do you just follow the law, question and release or hold them for say a week while you try to determine which one is the guy?

1) Who said there had to be tainted evidence?

2) Hindsight Quarterbacks would drag them through the mud afterwards

 

To #1:

'Tainted evidence' is evidence that has to be excluded due to a violation of a right. Not all rights violations constitute exclusion though. I don't know about Kentucky, but in Texas, there are things like the 'good faith standard' and 'harmful error' that allow exceptions to include evidence despite the fact that it was obtained in violation of certain rights.

 

To #2:

Hindsight quarterbacks sometimes can "drag (some) people through the mud" because most competent officers who've been doing their job awhile know what to say and what not to say. Take your example of the guy with the ammo, explosives, and political bumper stickers. A cop knows that they'd probably be meandering into dangerous territory if they mentioned the political stickers or something like the person's race in saying they looked suspicious. They'd know to keep it on the large amounts of ammo and explosives. Maybe they'd even know how to get creative with their testimony to be sure it stuck by saying subjective things like "the person was acting nervous" or "the suspect seemed to be trying to avoid me" that strengthen their reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If they don't have things like that figured out by a certain point in time, then maybe it's best that they aren't patrolling.

Defending people's rights can be often a dirty deed. You're going to be accused of all sorts of wicked things and are probably going to have to "defend" some unsavory characters. But, the problem is that if exceptions are attached to rights, whatever the reason, then it begins to make them rights only nominally.

 

As a practical matter, there are certainly instances where ignoring someone's rights is the correct course of action. But, I am also going to be critical of encroachments into people's rights and want to see accountability when they are violated. I think there is a difference between a police officer making a snap decision if they fear someone's life is on the line and policies that conditionalize rights in the name of safety.

To #1:

'Tainted evidence' is evidence that has to be excluded due to a violation of a right. Not all rights violations constitute exclusion though. I don't know about Kentucky, but in Texas, there are things like the 'good faith standard' and 'harmful error' that allow exceptions to include evidence despite the fact that it was obtained in violation of certain rights.

Seems to be the way it should be.

 

To #2:

Hindsight quarterbacks sometimes can "drag (some) people through the mud" because most competent officers who've been doing their job awhile know what to say and what not to say. Take your example of the guy with the ammo, explosives, and political bumper stickers. A cop knows that they'd probably be meandering into dangerous territory if they mentioned the political stickers or something like the person's race in saying they looked suspicious. They'd know to keep it on the large amounts of ammo and explosives. Maybe they'd even know how to get creative with their testimony to be sure it stuck by saying subjective things like "the person was acting nervous" or "the suspect seemed to be trying to avoid me" that strengthen their reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If they don't have things like that figured out by a certain point in time, then maybe it's best that they aren't patrolling.

In that scenario I don't see why he would even be questioned, it was kind of a red herring on my part. If I had the money I could see me making a purchase like that (I don't feel that way towards the government or have those stickers though:lol2:)

Man buys 5 AR-15's, 50 pounds of Tanerite and 5000 rounds of ammunition, get's in a truck with anti government stickers all over it. Should he be stopped, questioned and detained?

 

I know you're asking a serious question here JD, and I apologize...but I couldn't help but think of this.

 

Seems to be the way it should be.

 

In that scenario I don't see why he would even be questioned, it was kind of a red herring on my part. If I had the money I could see me making a purchase like that (I don't feel that way towards the government or have those stickers though:lol2:)

 

 

I'm sure Kentucky probably has some very similar laws, maybe not necessarily applicable to all of the same situations (in Texas it's more likely to come up in a situation with, say, a language barrier than it would be in Kentucky), but it's the same principle. It's not like something damning like a person's confession is going to be thrown out because they asked for Coke and you gave them Pepsi. Confessions are generally thrown out when the person who confessed can prove something like some extreme coercion (i.e., my head was slammed against the table until I signed) or a reasonable person might have been scared enough to confess even though they didn't do it. That's kind of oversimplified, but I think you can get a better understanding of what's going on with some stuff.

 

 

 

To the second, I didn't know what the chemical in question was and just assumed it was something bad that was being bought in a large quantity.

 

I really think that if you looked up some of the exigent circumstances (even a google search and a reputable article) that you'd see that there are already exceptions for some of the things you are going for. Taking it a step further, if you did more research on some case law, you'd see how some of those exceptions could be manipulated/stretched (this is kind of a bad example, but you can probably get a basic idea from it).

 

As far as exigent circumstances go, it's like this, if you are an officer on patrol and you hear a disturbance inside a house where a husband and wife are physically fighting and you hear one spouse say "I'll pull the trigger right now" and the other scream "no, don't kill me" in sheer terror, you aren't expected to go get a warrant and come back to the house, you can go in without a warrant. That's more of an obvious example, but things get tricky when it's something like "we had good reason to believe that in the time it took us to get the warrant, that the evidence of the crime would have been destroyed because the drugs would have been flushed, the blood washed off the shirt, and the knife thrown in a river somewhere".

Possibly wasn't in the question.

 

So your on the side of erring on the side of personal liberty than on the side of someones life?

 

I am not sure that trampling of natural rights as they are to be protected in the Constitution has lead to lots of life saving.

 

I am sure the death rates in the the internment camps of WWII established for Americans of Japanese decent was higher than if the internment camps were not illegally erected.

 

You can always make the case 'to (maybe) save a life' you should wave natural, God-given rights. But then if that is done where is the check and the balance? If you give that much power to the government it will be abused.

 

And the hyperbole of 'save a life' is how we have the monstrous 'Patriot Act' and NSA internal spying similar to the old USSR. Truly 'Domestic Terrorism' is rare. Timothy McVie was in contact with Muslim radicals, 9/11 was outsiders, Boston Marathon incident was naturalized immigrants who probably should not have been allowed in the country. Internal spying and trampling of rights reserved by the People would not be needed if the government did its mission of controlling the borders.

 

But in the end this is what comes to mind - "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. "

The question is just too flawed Jumper. By answering "always" then you are essentially taking peoples right away wholesale and they have no recourse, and where does one draw the line in "saving a life". By answering "never" then one is saying that in no circumstance, no matter how extreme, a persons "rights" afforded to them are always the most important thing and never compromised, and there are many examples where one could prove this false. There are very very few people I believe on this board that could answer this "always" or "never".

I am not sure that trampling of natural rights as they are to be protected in the Constitution has lead to lots of life saving.

 

I am sure the death rates in the the internment camps of WWII established for Americans of Japanese decent was higher than if the internment camps were not illegally erected.

 

You can always make the case 'to (maybe) save a life' you should wave natural, God-given rights. But then if that is done where is the check and the balance? If you give that much power to the government it will be abused.

 

And the hyperbole of 'save a life' is how we have the monstrous 'Patriot Act' and NSA internal spying similar to the old USSR. Truly 'Domestic Terrorism' is rare. Timothy McVie was in contact with Muslim radicals, 9/11 was outsiders, Boston Marathon incident was naturalized immigrants who probably should not have been allowed in the country. Internal spying and trampling of rights reserved by the People would not be needed if the government did its mission of controlling the borders.

 

But in the end this is what comes to mind - "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. "

 

Nice quote that has been repeated over and over and IMO overly simplistic view of a serious issue. We give up freedoms every day without batting an eye in the guise of public safety. Whether it be limits on drinking and driving, being able to carry a firearm for protection any place we want or being forced to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.

Edited February 17, 201412 yr by Jumper_Dad

The question is just too flawed Jumper. By answering "always" then you are essentially taking peoples right away wholesale and they have no recourse, and where does one draw the line in "saving a life". By answering "never" then one is saying that in no circumstance, no matter how extreme, a persons "rights" afforded to them are always the most important thing and never compromised, and there are many examples where one could prove this false. There are very very few people I believe on this board that could answer this "always" or "never".

 

Your correct, I guess went too simple with my question. I was just wanting to start a discussion about where liberties end and saving a life begins.