Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (21454)	6/19/2006 4:02:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541542

We disagree about whether the exclusionary rule is at all likely to get dropped (or at least so modified and qualified as to be essentially dropped without formally dropping it), but that was only a peripheral issue with me. Even if this decision really is part of some plan to move towards dropping the rule its only a tiny step in that direction. I was addressing the merits of the case without regard to any wider plan that may or may not exist. I can see if you are really sure that there is such a plan how you would consider this decision a net good or bad thing at least partially in light of such plan. I won't try to change your mind about the existence of such a plan or even this decision as a way to further the plan, but assume for a second that there is no such plan and never will be. Would the decision still be a bad thing in your opinion? Also more specifically does the constitution, or the exclusionary principle the court derived to enforce the 4th amendment, specifically require that evidence be tossed out if while serving a legitimate warrant the police announce themselves but do not knock? I'm not sure that those questions are areas were we "just disagree", or that even if we do disagree that further discussion about them is useless and uninteresting.