Dear 5/9 of the Supreme Court

[yendi]

Fuck you.

ETA: Oh, and Glenn Reynolds -- normally a pretty big supporter of four of the five of you -- is calling you on your bullshit here.

Comments

[gentleeleos.livejournal.com]

As a former criminal defense lawyer, I'm saddened by this decision...but not at all surprised. *sighs* This is how bad law is made. The deck has always been stacked against the defense. This is just one more card for the prosecution and the police. The Court has been moving in this direction since Earl Warren retired in 1969.

[cucumberseed.livejournal.com]

Gah.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I have heard a reasonable argument [¹] that facts should not be dismissed due to police misconduct provided that the corrupt or negligent police be prosecuted for their misdeeds before the evidence is presented at trial.

This decision does not address that deterrent to police misconduct. This decision provides no deterrent at all.

[¹] I do not necessarily agree with the argument, but it is reasonable and well worth debating.

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

Yah, the holding is supposedly narrow, but I think it takes a big chunk out of the exclusionary rule.