(no subject)
Feb. 2nd, 2004 07:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sathorLemme quote something out of Doublespeak here, a nice little excerpt that you people might find interesting.
"Those Honest Mistakes Will Get You If You Don't Watch Out"
The police had a search warrant for the apartment on the third floor. When they got to the third floor they found two doors, both open. Assuming there was only one apartment, the police began their search, finding drugs, money, and drug paraphernalia. But then they discovered there were two apartments, not one, and that they were in the wrong apartment. Was their search a warrantless search?
If you were to read the facts of the case, you would probably react as I did. The police thought they were following the law but in fact they weren't. While you might want to say the search was legal, how could you? The Constitution is pretty clear, requiring that a place can be searched only with a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed." Clearly the police had no such warrant to search the apartment they searched because their warrant named another apartment and named different things to be siezed.
The Supreme Court upheld the search by calling it an "honest mistake." Yes, the police made a mistake, but they didn't mean to make a mistake. They made their mistake in good faith, unlike a mistake made in bad faith, whatever that is. How do we know that the police made an honest mistake acting in good faith? We don't, but the Supreme Court does. Just ask them. And the police do, all the time. In fact, the Court keeps hearing about police mistakes made in good faith, and it keep saying that the search was fine.
When the police stopped a motorist for a minor traffic violation, they ran a computer check and found there was an outstanding traffic warrant against him. They arrested him and searched his car, finding a bag of marijuana.
But the computer was wrong, and the warrant had been removed over two weeks earlier. Still, the man was tried for posession of marijuana. Again, the court said that the police search was in "good faith." So even though there was no basis for the search, it was legal. The court did not find it very significant that the police computer system made on the average 12,000 inaccurate or invalid reports on suspects every day. So, if you're ever stopped by the police, you'd better hope that you're not one of those 12,000 daily mistakes made by the National Crime Information Center's computer. Because you have no protection against a "good faith" search by the police.
While the police and prosecutors enjoy the benefits of "good faith" and "harmless error," defendants do not. In Coleman v. Thompson, the Court said that if inmates fail to meet all the state court system's procedural requirements, for almost any reason, they forfeit their right to challenge the constitutionality of their conviction in federal court. So when Robert Coleman's attorney missed a state filing deadline by three days, he forfeited all constitutional rights to appeal his case in the federal courts. The Court was not concerned with nor did it care about the merits of Coleman's arguments; it cared only that his attorney had failed by three days to file a petition with the state court. Is it fair for someone to face death because his lawyer made an error? Yes, said the Court, "the petitioner must bear the risk of attorney error." You'd better be very careful if you ever need to hire a lawyer. To be safe from the rulings of the Supreme Court, you'd better hire a perfect lawyer, one who never makes mistakes. But then how could you ever afford to pay such a lawyer? The price of perfection runs high. Just ask Night Train Lane.
In the language of the Supreme Court, "harmless error" and "good faith" mistakes are made only by the police and prosecutors, never by defendants and their attorneys. The power to define is indeed awesome, especially when exercised by the Supreme Court in criminal cases.
"Those Honest Mistakes Will Get You If You Don't Watch Out"
The police had a search warrant for the apartment on the third floor. When they got to the third floor they found two doors, both open. Assuming there was only one apartment, the police began their search, finding drugs, money, and drug paraphernalia. But then they discovered there were two apartments, not one, and that they were in the wrong apartment. Was their search a warrantless search?
If you were to read the facts of the case, you would probably react as I did. The police thought they were following the law but in fact they weren't. While you might want to say the search was legal, how could you? The Constitution is pretty clear, requiring that a place can be searched only with a warrant "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed." Clearly the police had no such warrant to search the apartment they searched because their warrant named another apartment and named different things to be siezed.
The Supreme Court upheld the search by calling it an "honest mistake." Yes, the police made a mistake, but they didn't mean to make a mistake. They made their mistake in good faith, unlike a mistake made in bad faith, whatever that is. How do we know that the police made an honest mistake acting in good faith? We don't, but the Supreme Court does. Just ask them. And the police do, all the time. In fact, the Court keeps hearing about police mistakes made in good faith, and it keep saying that the search was fine.
When the police stopped a motorist for a minor traffic violation, they ran a computer check and found there was an outstanding traffic warrant against him. They arrested him and searched his car, finding a bag of marijuana.
But the computer was wrong, and the warrant had been removed over two weeks earlier. Still, the man was tried for posession of marijuana. Again, the court said that the police search was in "good faith." So even though there was no basis for the search, it was legal. The court did not find it very significant that the police computer system made on the average 12,000 inaccurate or invalid reports on suspects every day. So, if you're ever stopped by the police, you'd better hope that you're not one of those 12,000 daily mistakes made by the National Crime Information Center's computer. Because you have no protection against a "good faith" search by the police.
While the police and prosecutors enjoy the benefits of "good faith" and "harmless error," defendants do not. In Coleman v. Thompson, the Court said that if inmates fail to meet all the state court system's procedural requirements, for almost any reason, they forfeit their right to challenge the constitutionality of their conviction in federal court. So when Robert Coleman's attorney missed a state filing deadline by three days, he forfeited all constitutional rights to appeal his case in the federal courts. The Court was not concerned with nor did it care about the merits of Coleman's arguments; it cared only that his attorney had failed by three days to file a petition with the state court. Is it fair for someone to face death because his lawyer made an error? Yes, said the Court, "the petitioner must bear the risk of attorney error." You'd better be very careful if you ever need to hire a lawyer. To be safe from the rulings of the Supreme Court, you'd better hire a perfect lawyer, one who never makes mistakes. But then how could you ever afford to pay such a lawyer? The price of perfection runs high. Just ask Night Train Lane.
In the language of the Supreme Court, "harmless error" and "good faith" mistakes are made only by the police and prosecutors, never by defendants and their attorneys. The power to define is indeed awesome, especially when exercised by the Supreme Court in criminal cases.
