Digg - Supremes Mull Whether Bad Databases Make 4 Illegal Searches

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

57 Comments
Who Dugg It?

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.
- 1legend, on 10/05/2008, -0/+7Exactly what I was thinking.
- 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.
- 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.
  - AriaStar, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2That's exactly what I already said.
  - LenBaird, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2I tightened it up a little for you ;)
- 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.
- reformation, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1Except drug abuse affects more then just the user. Addicts commit crime, the proceeds go to gangsters and organized criminals, poor farmers are forced to produce the crops.
  - 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?
- Adamlite, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1We don't own ourselves, we own government debt!
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?
- rald84, on 10/05/2008, -0/+5scalia says its because the police now have better oversight. right.
- 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.
- 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.
  - 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.
locojones, on 10/05/2008, -11/+3The Supreme Court will come down on the side of the authorities on this one, as they have in related cases in the past. The police got information. That information provided probable cause to effect an arrest. During that arrest, contraband was found in a search incident to that arrest. To enforce the exclusionary rule against the police for their good faith reliance on a warrant in a database from another county would be contrary to pretty much everything that has developed in the area of criminal procedure jurisprudence.

What would you prefer the outcome be? "Hi there, this if Officer Jones, could you check to see if Mr. X is in your database? Oh he is? Ok, well could you go ahead and double check his records with the courthouse and get back to me in several days to make sure his information is up to date. We'll just sit here and let a suspected felon drive out of the parking lot."
- zgoos, on 10/05/2008, -0/+8Yeah, that's pretty much what I'd prefer.
  - locojones, on 10/05/2008, -1/+1Ok Zgoos, and let's say in the span of the couple days it takes to track down all of his records that the guy they let go was a suspected murdered or child predator, and your child or family member was his next victim while the cops sat on their hands. How would you feel about that outcome?
- 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?
  - stagmire, 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.
  - localzuk, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2Then why isn't that stopping this sort of thing happening? It obviously isn't good enough.
- 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.
  - locojones, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1KH99 -
    
    It's clear you have zero familiarity with constitutional criminal procedure, but I'll ask anyway. Point me to the place in the Constitution that supports your assertion.
- locojones, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1Digg me down all you want, but I'm right and you're not. In fact, there's a case so directly on point that this case will never even make it to the circuit court of appeals. In Arizona v. Evans, the defendant was arrested on a routine traffic stop after the officer's computer reported there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. During the warrantless search incident to arrest, the officer discovered marijuana. As it turns out, the arrest warrant had previously been quashed, but defendant's name wasn't removed from the computer due to a clerical error.
  
  The Supreme Court wrote: "The exclusionary rule was historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct, not mistakes by court employees." As the Court focused on the clerical error, they noted that there was noe vidence to suggest that "court employees are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion." Finally, and what remains as the litmus test for applying the exclusionary rule, the Court wrote: "there is no basis for believing that the application of the exclusionary rule in these circumstances will have a significant effect on court employees responsible for informing the police that a warrant has been quashed."
  
  In conclusion, "there is no indication that the arresting officer was not acting objectively reasonably when he relied upon the police computer record."
  
  Period, end of story.
DestroyFascism, on 10/05/2008, -8/+2Only if its Heroin or similar destructive nasties..
- TBagwell, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3you don't get it, huh?
oxphantomxo, on 10/05/2008, -2/+6No, Fruit of the forbidden tree.
- 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.
jflaker, 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?
Aanidaani, on 10/05/2008, -9/+2This is like asking if a cop goes into a donut shop and spots a criminal robbing the place, should he arrest him? Of course he should, and if illegal drugs are found during the course of a different investigation, they should be confiscated and charges should be made.
- 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 *****.
- 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
- 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.
MooseOfReason, on 10/05/2008, -2/+4Funny how that guy's last name is "herring."

Bennie Herring is a Red Herring!
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 ...
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.
- 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, -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.
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).
- titlesaysitall, on 10/05/2008, -1/+6Not enough room for the title to say it all?
- xaxxon, on 10/05/2008, -1/+7it doesn't matter if there's room - it has a totally different MEANING using the number.
- CrushThemTorg, on 10/05/2008, -0/+4Not only does it change the meaning, it's also tacky as hell.
- Midtowner, on 10/05/2008, -0/+2This is the internet, not a goddamn cell phone.
- 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.
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.
- 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?
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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
- fuze44, on 10/05/2008, -0/+3If that was the goal, then he should have abbreviated databases to DBs.
  
  Dumb title.
larsonsm, on 10/05/2008, -2/+3I thought the title was referring to the Motown group
th3heretic, on 10/05/2008, -1/+3Digg headlines sure have gone down the gutter recently. (Mistake's made and such)
- drunkmuppet, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1They copied it straight from the article except they changed for to 4 to make it fit.
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.
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.
- 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.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Supremes Mull Whether Bad Databases Make 4 Illegal Searches

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Security

Twitter Phishers Also Targeting Facebookthumb

Login or register to add a comment

Supremes Mull Whether Bad Databases Make 4 Illegal Searches

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Security

Twitter Phishers Also Targeting Facebookthumb

Related by Keyword

Illegal prime

Hackers break into citizen database

Hacker Erased Spammer’s Database

Login or register to add a comment