digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at blog.wired.com

Supremes Mull Whether Bad Databases Make 4 Illegal Searches

blog.wired.com — If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you?

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 5, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

57 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • AriaStar, on 10/05/2008, -4/+55It shouldn't be admissible for a damned good reason. All it would take then is someone intentionally, I mean, "erroneously" entering something and suddenly your entire life is subject to being searched down to the minutest detail. This goes against illegal search and seizure. Allowing evidence found due to bad info opens Pandora's Box more than it already is. While illegal activity may be uncovered (such as having a packet of meth), our individual rights need to be preserved as well rather than treating us all like criminals.

    As a small side note, *****, if someone wants to take meth, smoke pot, whatever, let 'em. Their bodies, right? Quit wasting tax dollars on punishing people for what they put in their own bodies. When we don't even own ourselves, we are absolutely not free.
  • PHiZ187, on 10/05/2008, -2/+27If we do not suppress the evidence, then what incentive will law enforcement agencies have to keep accurate databases?
  • Elshar, on 10/05/2008, -4/+18Completely off-topic, but why the hell use the number 4 instead of the word "for"? I mean, did that save you alot of time clicking letters into your cellphone or something?

    Dugg down as lame for that (As this post surely will be as well).
  • Grym11, on 10/05/2008, -0/+9One million people are on the "Terrorist Watch List." One million.

    http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35968prs20080714.html

    If the Supreme Court allows this they will be destroying fourth amendment protections. It will be a green light to complete totalitarianism.
  • inactive, on 10/05/2008, -2/+11IF this were to happen in business (similar bad entry caused investor meltdown of stock), the fed would be all over the company for poor business practice.....oh, wait, didn't that already happen to a few companies?
  • MooseOfReason, on 10/05/2008, -0/+8No, this is like you sitting on a park bench, and a cop arrests you, telling you he heard someone say you robbed a bank.

    It's hearsay, which is *****.
  • zgoos, on 10/05/2008, -0/+8Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd prefer.
  • vtnerd, on 10/05/2008, -0/+8We are? I think the police should especially be open to personal lawsuits over their actions. How many unnecessary taser murders have police committed in recent memory? They need to be personally accountable.
  • inactive, on 10/05/2008, -0/+7Exactly what I was thinking.
  • keraneuology, on 10/05/2008, -2/+9ELIMINATE personal immunity. We're several decades beyond the point where government employees should be exposed to personal lawsuits for their actions.
  • parabolicaer, on 10/05/2008, -1/+8As someone pointed out earlier, the SCOTUS will likely come down on the side of Herring based on the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. There are exceptions to the rule, but I don't see the applicable factors found here. Even so, that hasn't stopped the Roberts court from ruling based on ideology before.

    For those who think that the next presidential election won't matter, just remember that the next president will likely be replacing the liberal Justices on the Court. In other words, the Court can only either stay the way it is now or get even more conservative!

    http://lawmedia.lclark.edu/LawMedia/Viewer/Viewers ...
  • vtnerd, on 10/05/2008, -1/+7No, Aanidaani.

    It's like you are sitting in a donut shop minding your own business. A cop walks in and comes over to you and says "someone told me you were going to rob this place, you're under arrest." You had no intention of robbing the donut shop, but you did have some weed in your pocket. You get charged for possession.

    Later, you find out that the cop's initial suspicion of you was based on incorrect data in the police database. So they were completely wrong about your plans (or lack thereof) to rob the donut shop. Do they still get to prosecute you for possession of weed even though their screw-up is what pointed the finger at you in the first place?

    If the answer is not a resounding NO, then consider yourself screwed. The police can simply make "mistakes" and reap the "benefits" of those "mistakes" in all future investigations. The criminal justice system in the US is built to protect the innocent at the cost of occasionally letting some guilty people go free. And, if you don't want to get ***** over by the police it needs to stay that way forever.
  • xaxxon, on 10/05/2008, -1/+7it doesn't matter if there's room - it has a totally different MEANING using the number.
  • kidrichgt, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5They have better oversight but less training. The city of Rochester's (NY) police department removed their field computer system because it was too difficult for the officers to use and was leading to delays and field errors. Oversights fine but after an arrest costs someone their job and media coverage because someone wasn't able to use the computer system right due to an incorrect initial arrest for say rape, a sorry or oversight isn't going to cut it.
  • kufu91, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5it isn't like that at all because the original arrest was made based on constitutionally valid evidence. this is more like getting a fake search warrant for illegal weapons and finding drugs while you were there. if you don't have a legitimate reason to find something illegal you don't have a legitimate reason to use something unrelated in that search
  • rald84, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5scalia says its because the police now have better oversight. right.
  • KyleGoetz, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6My guess, as a mere law student only tangentially experienced in criminal law, is that the SCOTUS will come down in favor of the government here. The SCOTUS has repeatedly held that the 4th Amendment is supposed to be a stick to prevent police from INTENTIONALLY making unauthorized searches. This summer I worked for the US Attorney's Office and I read SCOTUS cases in which they held that searches did not violate the 4th Amendment even if police used a defective warrant or no warrant when they thought they had one or when they legitimately believed they had probable cause to search without a warrant.

    The Court has held that the target of the 4th Amendment is police, not non-police. You may not like it (I haven't decided if I do), but the SCOTUS (which now has a strong Republica majority) will, I'm guessing, pronounce similar in this case.
  • titlesaysitall, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6Not enough room for the title to say it all?
  • LenBaird, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6If they allow this evidence to be used, expect "errors" left and right... that aren't errors at all.
  • vtnerd, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6"If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you?"

    I hope not. If they declare otherwise, the police will simply make "mistakes" in all future investigations whenever they need something done. The potential for abuse outweighs any possible benefit to society by a huge margin.

    And weed (and other drugs) should be legal. Government's place is not to play the role of nanny and protect you from yourself. Unless your drug habit is somehow infringing on my rights (this is impossible unless you force me to indulge, by the way) then you should be able to do as you please.
  • oxphantomxo, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6No, Fruit of the forbidden tree.
  • CrushThemTorg, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4Not only does it change the meaning, it's also tacky as hell.
  • Quenlin, on 10/05/2008, -3/+7If the law says that the data needs to be removed after five months, and those five months have passed, then the data isn't legal. He should've gotten a better lawyer, cause even I could've rendered it inadmissible.
  • TBagwell, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3you don't get it, huh?
  • localzuk, on 10/05/2008, -1/+4No, the records should follow a series of checks when being updated - ie. if a warrant is on there which should be removed after a certain time, etc... it should automatically be removed after that time - and not rely on someone to manually do it.

    If you allow this sort of thing to happen then you are opening a big door to corruption - ie. what is to stop someone having a grudge against someone, puts something on a database, which leads to an illegal arrest - what's to stop that happening?
  • mdman, on 10/05/2008, -2/+5stupid title..

    what the ***** people.. 4 and for mean two different things...
    Quit typing like a high school kid text messaging their buddies.
  • fuze44, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3If that was the goal, then he should have abbreviated databases to DBs.

    Dumb title.
  • MooseOfReason, on 10/05/2008, -2/+4Funny how that guy's last name is "herring."

    Bennie Herring is a Red Herring!
  • fluxion, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2you've jumped to conclusions, failing to notice that this topic is actually the result of a valiant attempt to avoid having it truncated by digg

    Supremes instead of supreme court
    mull instead of judge/investigate/etc.
    4 instead of for

    its actually quite impressive
  • b8man99, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed privacy to do what they want to do, just in case they end up one of the minority who turn to crime? Because when you cross that line you soon find out that everyone is a criminal. Anything illegal in your house? On your computer?
  • th3heretic, on 10/05/2008, -1/+3Digg headlines sure have gone down the gutter recently. (Mistake's made and such)
  • localzuk, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Then why isn't that stopping this sort of thing happening? It obviously isn't good enough.
  • LenBaird, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2I tightened it up a little for you ;)
  • AriaStar, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2That's exactly what I already said.
  • Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2And what, dear Quenlin, is required for the exclusionary rule to play in such a circumstance? I hope to God you're not a lawyer because you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
  • Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2This is the internet, not a goddamn cell phone.

  • Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Even if we had a liberal majority, I fail to see (unless they want to play by the 'we've got 5 votes, nyah nyah' rule), how any Court could fail to uphold this search. The Rehnquist court had a long history of narrowing the applicability of the exclusionary rule, and at this point, if a court is going to respect stare decisis, I simply fail to see how this appeal is going to result in anything but an affirmation of the 11th Cir.

    Unless the officers executing the warrant knew or should have known that the information they relied on to make the arrest, which led to the subsequent search was false, or if they were acting as agents of the other county (which could be an interesting argument since they were executing the search warrant for the other county), I don't see how the exclusionary rule can apply either.
  • kd1s, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Back when I worked for the state AG's office we had a terrible time with expungements. The courts always dragged their feet about notifying us that a charge had been expunged. I don't know if they ever fixed it but if they haven't it's going to cause a problem someday.

  • inactive, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1There are lots of things to stop that, like detailed logs of who added a particular piece of information and when. I used to work in law enforcement and the NCIC computer system kept logs of everything I did, including my searches.
  • larsonsm, on 10/05/2008, -2/+3I thought the title was referring to the Motown group
  • locojones, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2Oh really? Why don't you show us how much you know about the topic by just giving us the title of the Motion that you would file to make your argument?
  • Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2The exclusionary rule only works to sanction bad faith actions by police officers.

    In ordinary situations, where there are no databases, a police officer is entitled to rely (in good faith) on the fact that an informant's information giving probable cause leading to a search is truthful.

    The Supremes will undoubtedly continue the Rehnquist Court's long tradition of only applying the exclusionary rule to instances when the officers conducting the search were doing so in bad faith.
  • kh99, on 10/05/2008, -1/+2"What would you prefer the outcome be?"

    The police should have gone after the guy, but the case should be thrown out once it's found that the database was in error. Why? Read the first comment at the top of the page.

    It's pretty sad, really. People figured this out hundreds of years ago when the constitution was written (probably long before that, I don't know). But here we are in 2008 and we still have a country full of morons who can't figure out why it's right.
  • Adamlite, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1We don't own ourselves, we own government debt!
  • locojones, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Except the evidence was obtained in a search incident to an arrest based on good faith probable cause. And legal precedent always upholds those decisions in favor of the authorities.
  • drunkmuppet, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1They copied it straight from the article except they changed for to 4 to make it fit.
  • robdiggity, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2I think the Supremes are likely to see it your way, with Florence Ballard and Mary Wilson writing the deciding opinion and Diana Ross undoubtedly penning the dissent.

    Admitting this type of evidence would be a gross miscarriage of justice, and they will stop it in the name of love.
  • PopcornDave, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1All it would really take to end this once and for all is for the police to have some "erroneous information" entered in to a database about *their* personal lives that would cause them some trouble, say their bank account being overdrawn or a few late payments on a credit card, and they'd soon see the trouble with not maintaining their database. And the minute they sued over such an offense, wouldn't they open the door to being sued themselves having established precedent that an out of date database is not sufficient in handling affairs?
  • lolwutpear, on 10/06/2008, -0/+0The wording/abbreviating in the title to prevent it from being cut off by Digg are interesting, to say the least. It's the first time I've heard the judges of the Supreme Court called "Supremes." In this case, unlike most, the tacky '4' is somewhat justified - even if there was probably a better way to word the title. I'm sure the submitter put a lot of thought into how he phrased it to convey the details of the article in the allotted space.
  • aserer511, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1I think legal precedent states that the drugs can't be held against you. History shows that the SCOTUS has barred used of, and again perhaps wrongfully so, evidence obtained/presented improperly.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.