Quote:
Originally Posted by friendly fred
Is it safe to assume if it is later found by a court that no probable cause existed for the original arrest that any evidence seized from that resulting in arrest would also be inadmissible, and any charges dependent upon the fruit of that poisonous tree would also be dropped?
|
It depends on what you mean by "safe" ... first of all there are some legal issues associated with the commonly held view that the evidence sought to be excluded would "inevitably" have been found and/or discovered irrespective of any flaw in the thought processes of the officer. Similar in theory is the law that a person cannot legally resist arrest even though it may be found later by a judge or jury that the person was not guilty.
The 4th amendment has to be read in the context of the times when it is read and not when it was originally crafted. The modern age of cars, planes, and electronic communication has made it necessary for exceptions to the warrant requirement of the amendment as well as to the "probable cause" standard.
Justice Thomas recently wrote on the broad subject matter and I will find you a name and cite of the case. He was focused on Terry ("stop and frisk") and it's meaning. It has been regularly and too long misinterpreted even though the Court did in Sibron vs. New York found in the U.S. reporter JUST AFTER TERRY, in which they combined two cases with different outcomes in the opinion (often done by the Court) to emphasis what their instructions in Terry were for the street cops.
The short is: The phrase "stop and frisk" has been, and is,
wrongfully interpreted to mean that the officer has the authority TO STOP SOMEONE who they reasonably suspect of some specific criminal conduct and "frisk" the person. That's not what Terry says, and Sibron explains it.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" has exceptions and the most frequently used is the one I mentioned: "inevitable discovery"! Please keep in mind that the "punishment" for violating the 4th amendment is prohibiting the introduction into evidence of the fruit "poisoned" by the tree. That doesn't mean the case will be dismissed unless the prohibited evidence is all the evidence there is to prove the crime charged and no other evidence exists to prove all of the elements of the offense. It's not automatic.
Not to be advocating for the sorry excuses for Federal LE that boxed Flynn into a lie to get a conviction on him, but the Judge presiding over the case has the authority on the Federal rules to determine whether or not a case will be dismissed or tried. The Judge also has the authority to determine whether a plea can be withdraw and/or a new trial granted so the admission can be withdrawn or set aside. Lying to a Judge is a bad thing. Admitting to perjury to a Judge and then seeking to withdraw the admission is also a bad thing ... and it is tantamount to lying.
Defendants admit to shit all the time they didn't do, and/or should not have pled guilty upon. It's a manner of "settling" the case at a lower level without risking a long sentence....for instance misdemeanor cases pled out "for time served"! Later on they regret it ... almost always ... most particularly in Federal courts during the sentencing phase....even if they don't have a problem with it if they elect to testify.
Recess....!
whenever will they learn?
