SCOTUS- Virginia vs. Moore

Read this important piece by The Agitator on the recent SCOTUS hearing, Virginia vs. Moore. If you want to read a transcript on how legal scholars can justify gutting one of our last constitutional protections (Exclusionary Rule), this is for you.

The Exclusionary Rule states that illegally obtained evidence can not be used at trial. It appears that SCOTUS is leaning towards diminishing that standard and sanctioning illegal conduct by law enforcement.

18 State Attorney General are arguing to end this practice so that officers can break the law without endangering drug arrests. Va. vs Moore is of course, a drug case. The State of Virginia’s goal is to win as many dope cases as possible, not to uphold constiutional protections. Prohibition has made Attorneys General full time advocates for repealing the Bill of Rights.

Without the Exclusionary Rule the 4th Amendment really loses all meaning. SCOTUS has already destroyed the warrant and reasonable search and seizure requirement. It’s embarassing to watch appellate courts justify illegal police activity.

<img src="http://www.blogger.c says:

January 18, 2008 at 11:25 am

Without knowing VA law or the officer’s standard operating procedure, it would seem reasonable for the officer to tow the person’s car and let the driver walk (or if on the highway, give him a ride to a safe place off the highway). Failing that, then this it does seem like the officer is reaching for something larger.To the bigger issue of the 4th amend., I hope it isn’t gutted any further. The Locke quote on the other page was on point IMO.Government has no incentive to get smaller, but there is a surplus of at least 100,000 officers on the road left over from the Clinton admin. If more crime means hiring more officers, then less crime should mean fewer officers. Otherwise, you have a lot of employees who still expected to be productive but have less and less to do.