Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
Glad to see the 4th is still being respected. Collins v VA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...pdf/16-1027_7lio.pdf | ||
|
Info Guru |
How did that case make it thru all those courts, it seems like an open and shut case of an illegal search? I know precedent is a big deal, but come on. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
Member |
So who gets the bike? | |||
|
| Member |
Interesting Thomas and Alito dissented. What constitutes curtiledge of the House ? Is it some number of feet from the physical structure ? My house is only maybe 30 feet from the sidewalk. Is there some space where curtiledge stops and the yard begins ? I’m not a lawyer but that makes my head hurt all the cases referenced. | |||
|
| Info Guru |
Thomas filed a concurring opinion, it was just Alito who dissented. Here's a good analysis article, provided by SCOTUSBLOG: http://amylhowe.com/2018/05/29...utomobile-exception/ “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
Fighting the good fight |
Curtilage is not a specific distance. It is typically the area directly adjacent to a house, and which shares an increased expectation of privacy similar to the home. This may include porches, garages, carports, driveways, yards, etc., depending on some factors. | |||
|
| Member |
Oops didn’t scroll down far enough to see that Thomas wrote a separate but agreeing statement. The first section just says he dissented. Another question for our LEO And officers of the court. Is it considered bad career juju to have made an arrest and/or prosecution that was so bad that it gets slapped down by a large majority by the Supreme Court ? Hey... there’s Jones... all his arrests are now subject to further scrutiny becuse he just strolls onto anybody’s house. Or hey there’s Smith, He prosecuted this case with such a flimsy unwarranted search.. was he drunk the day 4th Amendment was taught at his law school ? | |||
|
| Fighting the good fight |
If it's slapped down at the low level because you're violating clear-cut precedence (and most likely policy), then that's potentially bad juju. Especially if it occurs repeatedly. But if it's something that isn't so clear, the officer has to make an educated judgement call at the time. If it works its way up through the appeals courts and/or all the way to the Supreme Court, and is eventually overturned, that doesn't really reflect badly on the officer. They merely made a decision in a gray area, where there wasn't clear-cut court precedence previously, and now that the case is decided everyone knows what's expected from here on out in situations like that. The Law isn't always black and white, and it takes test cases and the setting of legal precedence over time to further clarify those gray-area laws. This is especially true when it comes to modern challenges involving technology, cell phones, internet, etc., because laws are often old, and may not specifically cover certain unforeseen modern issues. So it takes test cases and the setting of legal precedence to clearly determine how to apply those to modern situations. | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
This sort of stuff happens all the time. (Cases getting to high courts). I have two cases that made it to the state Supreme Court, both were upheld as good searches. That doesn’t make me more creditable or whatever. The courts just agreed with the circumstances as I saw them. There are many factors that lead to cases making high courts such as unusual circumstances, or laws that are vague and a defense attorney that puts in the time and work to question it. It’s not good or bad, it just is. | |||
|
Member |
Curious. What if the motorcycle was sitting in plane view in the driveway or yard? Would the outcome still be the same? If the officer could read the tag from the street or sidewalk without entering curtilage area to do so (by naked eye or even assistance of a magnifying device or drone), could they then approach the house with PC due to tag coming back stolen. And then make an arrest that would be legal. Not violating 4th amendment. I agree with the decision here. an officer shouldn't be able to walk onto or into private property and uncover an item to determine if criminal activity is present without a search warrant. as the courts stated that would open up a big can of worms. and if I understand properly this would be a different case if the officer actually sees one committing a crime and then enters a dwelling, the officer then would have PC to enter property and or pursue individual. or am I wrong on that? thanks " like i said,....i didn't build it, i didn't buy it, and i didn't break it." | |||
|
| Member |
Plain view exception was also the first thing that came to my mind. The opinion says: "From his parked position on the street, Officer Rhodes saw what appeared to be a motorcycle with an extended frame covered with a white tarp, parked at the same angle and in the same location on the driveway as in the Face-book photograph." I would think this would be enough for plain view, but the Court addressed this later on in the opinion in page 8: "[U]nder the plain-view doctrine, “any valid warrantless seizure of incriminating evidence” requires thatthe officer “have a lawful right of access to the objectitself.” Horton v. California, 496 U. S. 128, 136–137 (1990); see also id., at 137, n. 7 (“‘[E]ven where the object is contraband, this Court has repeatedly stated and enforced the basic rule that the police may not enter and make a warrantless seizure’”); G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 354 (1977) (“It is one thing to seize without a warrant property resting in an open area . . . , and it is quite another thing to effect a warrantlessseizure of property . . . situated on private premises to which access is not otherwise available for the seizing officer”). A plain-view seizure thus cannot be justified if it is effectuated “by unlawful trespass.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U. S. 56, 66 (1992). Had Officer Rhodes seen illegal drugs through the window of Collins’ house, for example, assuming no other warrant exception applied, hecould not have entered the house to seize them without first obtaining a warrant." | |||
|
| Ice age heat wave, cant complain.  |
Is the officer positively IDing the bikes serial number and license plate through the tarp, or is he assuming this is the only motorcycle in the city? NRA Life Member Steak: Rare. Coffee: Black. Bourbon: Neat. | |||
|
The Unmanned Writer |
I believe the presumption was only one motorcycle would be parked at the registrant's address. If you run from the police and throw a tarp over your car, this ruling would also apply if a cop looks under said tarp to verify the license plate number, yes? Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. "If dogs don't go to Heaven, I want to go where they go" Will Rogers | |||
|
| Ice age heat wave, cant complain. |
I'm not a lawyer, but I can see your scenario being construed as exigent circumstances, and the motorcycle not. NRA Life Member Steak: Rare. Coffee: Black. Bourbon: Neat. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024