tbh none of these make sense it's just a weird way around the 4th amendment. The supreme court should be reprimanded for carving up the constitution like a Christmas turkey.
OKay, say you're a cop ... and you're told (over the radio) than an adjacent county has a warrant for someone's arrest. Dept policy is to search the car before you impound it to take it into evidence (there could be a little dog in there, drugs, a gun, etc) ... you arrest the suspect and begin impounding the car -- only to receive another transmission, after you've discovered an axe with some BLOOD AND HAIR ON IT. You then apologize to the person for the complete mistake on your part, unlock their cuffs, return the axe to its rightful place, and tell him to have a wonderful evening ..? Or, what about .... say .... a bio weapon, or an IED (and a blueprint for the nearest elementary school. Whichever you like... You could still do that if your kid went to that school? Your brother? Or nephew?
@@trumanhw The good faith exception just incentivizes judges to write bad warrants without probable cause, it's a complete disgrace to due process. If you think that judges should be allowed to broadly violate 4th amendment rights just because it might catch some criminals then there are plenty of corrupt, authoritarian, police states you could move to right now and experience the nanny state that you seem to desperately want
@@trumanhwalways some asinine far fetched hypothetical to appeal to emotion for the purpose of justifying constitutional violations that in reality are just used as work arounds to avoid the drug war taking from taking L’s from you bootlickers.
If by Law, they are required to have or possess a warrant, then let it be so. Finding an exception to get around the fact that a warrant is required is no excuse to get away with violating the supreme law of the land.
Right -- because now they KNOW to go ask a former roommate, "are you sure you NEVER EVER EVER EVER .... looked in THIS CABINET, OVER HEAR, in between your rooms..??" while they have them in custody, in an interrogation room, knowing they have NO EVIDENCE to prosecute them, only to coerce and intimidate a 3rd party in to believing they need to "save their own ass." ...?
So the question is,"When are they required to possess the warrant? if the answer is never, then we no longer have 4th Amendment protections, in which case you will find that the supreme law of the land, today, is still the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Amendment 4, which is also the supreme law.
If it was decided, back when they ratified the 4th Amendment, that a reasonable search and seizure required a warrant, then it should still require the warrant today.
Some things made illegal by the 4th Amendment are: Writs of Assistance, which was a type of a warrant, the Famous General Warrants, which were based on some type of probable cause and unreasonable searches and seizures.
I know why you'd think that and I easily could've too, but I'm familiar with the vast majority of this ruling which would exclude evidence, And I too and uncomfortable with blanket means by which they can violate it -- making it in name only ... but, this video does seek out to tell us about the 5 exceptions, not to tell us about the poisonous tree doctrine, itself.
So I believe that a reasonable search or seizure, back during colonial days and after the ratification of the 4th Amendment was one that required a paper warrant in some form which also required some kind of probable cause with particularity.
About the only exception that may be legal, is the one where a crime is committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or judge, but, even at that the so called crime must prove to be a crime within itself.
Fairly reasonable... but the balancing act (IMO) is whether it would compel the "constaples" who were targeting TRUMP to use such an excuse or not ... or Alex Jones. And if you think it would (on that balancing scale) INDUCE lawless behavior by the "pillars of law" ... that exception should really viewed skeptically. Again, IMO.
Consider the authority that was granted to English Soldiers during colonial times by the General Warrants or Writs of Assistance when conducting searches or making seizures, these I believe were made illegal under the 4th Amendment and I believe Reasonable Suspicion was one of those reasons.
There is no room for unconstitutional legislation under the Constitution. Exceptions are just another way for them to get away with crimes, same as qualified immunity.
Article VI Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution and are supreme in the same way as the Constitution as stated in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is applicable in both Civil and Criminal Procedure.
By allowing the Exception, one could say that Back before the Revolution, the King of England must have been in the right in the way he governed the colonies and that the founding fathers were wrong about the whole situation which led to war. That which they accuse them of in the declaration of independence is a bunch of bull.
![Have the Amendments Favored the National Government? [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XZH1_lflxdE/mqdefault.jpg)
![Have the Amendments Favored the National Government? [No. 86]](/img/tr.png)
![What is the Exclusionary Rule? [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vF18bwi4ACA/mqdefault.jpg)
*There is NO exclusionary rule anymore.* It's been molested so much it has no meaning.
The Good Faith exception makes no sense.
maybe punishing an officer isn't the way to go, however evidence should still be excluded.
tbh none of these make sense it's just a weird way around the 4th amendment. The supreme court should be reprimanded for carving up the constitution like a Christmas turkey.
@@ray495903314 Sorry. Turkey is exclusive to Thanksgiving, I will not be accepting any criticism
OKay, say you're a cop ... and you're told (over the radio) than an adjacent county has a warrant for someone's arrest. Dept policy is to search the car before you impound it to take it into evidence (there could be a little dog in there, drugs, a gun, etc) ... you arrest the suspect and begin impounding the car -- only to receive another transmission, after you've discovered an axe with some BLOOD AND HAIR ON IT.
You then apologize to the person for the complete mistake on your part, unlock their cuffs, return the axe to its rightful place, and tell him to have a wonderful evening ..? Or, what about .... say .... a bio weapon, or an IED (and a blueprint for the nearest elementary school. Whichever you like...
You could still do that if your kid went to that school?
Your brother? Or nephew?
@@trumanhw The good faith exception just incentivizes judges to write bad warrants without probable cause, it's a complete disgrace to due process. If you think that judges should be allowed to broadly violate 4th amendment rights just because it might catch some criminals then there are plenty of corrupt, authoritarian, police states you could move to right now and experience the nanny state that you seem to desperately want
@@trumanhwalways some asinine far fetched hypothetical to appeal to emotion for the purpose of justifying constitutional violations that in reality are just used as work arounds to avoid the drug war taking from taking L’s from you bootlickers.
If by Law, they are required to have or possess a warrant, then let it be so. Finding an exception to get around the fact that a warrant is required is no excuse to get away with violating the supreme law of the land.
So basically anything can be used as an excuse to validate unconstitutional searches and seizures.
how would they go about finding it legally if they already found it once? And what counts as an independent source?
Right -- because now they KNOW to go ask a former roommate, "are you sure you NEVER EVER EVER EVER .... looked in THIS CABINET, OVER HEAR, in between your rooms..??" while they have them in custody, in an interrogation room, knowing they have NO EVIDENCE to prosecute them, only to coerce and intimidate a 3rd party in to believing they need to "save their own ass." ...?
So the question is,"When are they required to possess the warrant? if the answer is never, then we no longer have 4th Amendment protections, in which case you will find that the supreme law of the land, today, is still the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Amendment 4, which is also the supreme law.
More videos with animations, please!
If it was decided, back when they ratified the 4th Amendment, that a reasonable search and seizure required a warrant, then it should still require the warrant today.
Some things made illegal by the 4th Amendment are: Writs of Assistance, which was a type of a warrant, the Famous General Warrants, which were based on some type of probable cause and unreasonable searches and seizures.
How does it apply to the states, now your looking at the 14th Amendment and Selective Incorporation.
So, the exclusionary rule is in name only.
I know why you'd think that and I easily could've too, but I'm familiar with the vast majority of this ruling which would exclude evidence, And I too and uncomfortable with blanket means by which they can violate it -- making it in name only ... but, this video does seek out to tell us about the 5 exceptions, not to tell us about the poisonous tree doctrine, itself.
Thanks.
So I believe that a reasonable search or seizure, back during colonial days and after the ratification of the 4th Amendment was one that required a paper warrant in some form which also required some kind of probable cause with particularity.
About the only exception that may be legal, is the one where a crime is committed in the presence of a law enforcement officer, prosecutor, or judge, but, even at that the so called crime must prove to be a crime within itself.
Fairly reasonable... but the balancing act (IMO) is whether it would compel the "constaples" who were targeting TRUMP to use such an excuse or not ... or Alex Jones. And if you think it would (on that balancing scale) INDUCE lawless behavior by the "pillars of law" ... that exception should really viewed skeptically. Again, IMO.
Consider the authority that was granted to English Soldiers during colonial times by the General Warrants or Writs of Assistance when conducting searches or making seizures, these I believe were made illegal under the 4th Amendment and I believe Reasonable Suspicion was one of those reasons.
There is no room for unconstitutional legislation under the Constitution. Exceptions are just another way for them to get away with crimes, same as qualified immunity.
Article VI Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution and are supreme in the same way as the Constitution as stated in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is applicable in both Civil and Criminal Procedure.
The law is the Law and the Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, which is the Constitution, not an Exception!
By allowing the Exception, one could say that Back before the Revolution, the King of England must have been in the right in the way he governed the colonies and that the founding fathers were wrong about the whole situation which led to war. That which they accuse them of in the declaration of independence is a bunch of bull.
using this for my bar exam lol
lmao i’m crunching for a criminal justice state comp
i do everything in "good faith" so everything i do is justified 😁
Ag Gag laws abuse this shit so much it's disgusting. I think the exclusionary rule is senseless and dangerous.
A search or seizure made without possessing the warrant was at one time illegal and probably still is.