{"id":2354,"date":"2008-12-24T09:34:42","date_gmt":"2008-08-10T10:30:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-10T10:30:57","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2354","title":{"rendered":"OH11: Judicial intergrity justifies exclusion; warrantless entry for noise complaint was unjustified"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Police responding to a noise complaint at defendant&#8217;s house found no noise when they arrived. Their entry into the premises was without exigent circumstances. The exigent circumstance here, contributing to the delinquency of a minor for giving alcohol, was disproved by the fact that the officers never even seized evidence of the offense (beer cans). <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/11\/2008\/2008-ohio-3993.pdf\">State v. Andrews<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 3993, 177 Ohio App. 3d 593 (11th Dist. 2008). The opinion also was a rare support for the exclusionary rule&#8217;s justification of judicial integrity:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P20]  The slow erosion of its protection for expediency&#8217;s sake or the attitude that a warrant is just a &#8220;technicality&#8221; should be troubling to all citizens but especially to the judicial branch, which is tasked with standing as the bulwark for our constitutional rights. The founders of our democracy courageously fought a tyrant who ordered warrantless searches of their homes and shops, and they created our cherished Bill of Rights in order to &#8220;transform the aspiration for freedom and arbitrary government intrusion into the guarantees of fundamental law.&#8221; Samuel Dash, The Intruders (2004), 3. <\/p>\n<p>. . . <\/p>\n<p>[*P38]  Pundits bemoan reversals of convictions based upon a &#8220;technicality.&#8221; But as Justice Clark so eloquently explained in the landmark decision in <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=367&amp;invol=643\"><em>Mapp v. Ohio<\/em><\/a> (1961), 367 U.S. 643: &#8220;There are those who say, as did Justice (then Judge) Cardozo, that under our constitutional exclusionary doctrine &#8216;[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.&#8217; <em>People v. Defore<\/em> (1926), 150 N.E. 585, 587. In some cases this will undoubtedly be the result. But, as was said in <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=367&amp;invol=643\"><em>Elkins<\/em><\/a> [(1960), 364 U.S. 206] &#8216;there is another consideration &#8211; the imperative of judicial integrity.&#8217; <em>Id<\/em>. at 222. The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=277&amp;invol=438\"><em>Olmstead v. United States<\/em><\/a> (1928), 277 U.S. 438, 485: &#8216;Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example\u2026If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.'&#8221; <em>Id<\/em>. at 659.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2354\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}