Officers had reasonable suspicion, and the judge thought he\u2019d be cute. Instead, he showed that he\u2019s a jerk. United States v. Haynesworth, 879 F. Supp. 2d 305 (E.D. N.Y. July 24, 2012)*:<\/p>\n
The United States Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961) that no evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure may be used in a criminal prosecution. Judge, later Justice, Benjamin Cardozo summarized the exclusionary rule in his iconic phrase: “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore<\/a>, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585 (1926). The motion to suppress the gun discovered and the statements made after arrest present the question of whether or not the constables blundered. After hearing the parties and the witnesses to the events in this case, after assessing the credibility of those witnesses, after reviewing the authorities cited by counsel and after determining the facts material to the resolution of the motion, this Court has a one word answer to the question presented: No. These constables did not blunder. This criminal does not go free. The motion to suppress is denied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He\u2019s an accused criminal, sir. And remember Defore<\/a>? There the constable arrested Defore outside his house and took him in his house for a search incident. That\u2019s not a blunder\u2013that\u2019s just stupid.<\/p>\n
And, judge, just how much do you hate the exclusionary rule that you have to say this? (Did defense counsel say something to set you off enough to prejudge guilt?)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading