No. I was too busy looking at Markie Post's tits.

Never before and not since has a defense attorney helped so many guys get off.

For Spanks
 

You had a colorable argument on the merits. I could even be persuaded to indulge your position on an academic level.




The movie thing, though... Not a good argument. Not a good idea.

Which are presently bouncing off her kneecaps.

For Spanks
 

Rather than change the exclusionary rule, maybe we need to make more realistic movies.

The challenge will be getting people to watch them. It's more interesting to see one guy "get off" than 300 get plea bargained every day, day in and day out.

I submit that Americans -- at least those capable of using the term "exclusionary rule" in a sentence -- are better able to distinguish between fact and fiction, and if given the choice of seeing police departments shut down because of massive damages awards based on a couple of bad cops' conduct, they would choose the current system. But, I could be wrong. And so I think better and more realistic video options would help.

Sidd Finch. Changing the world, one Netflix subscriber at a time.

For Spanks
 

I don't think massive damages would come to pass. Maybe lots of cases. But what are the damages? A new door? A trespass? These are $10,000 cases.

Have you watched Law and Order recently? The exclusionary rule comes up in just about every episode. What about the practice?

I made the point that people don't like the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the popular culture. That is all I said. These examples of pop culture were used as evidence for that one point. And no one seems to try and dispute that. Instead they try and make it seem like I am using those examples to make some other point.

If you don't think there is wide spread antipathy for the exclusionary rule then those points are relevent, if you agree with that statement then those statements are no longer relevent to the argument.

It is like pointing out that someone is a liar to cast doubt about their statments on the witness stand and then having the opposition saying "just because a witness for the defense is a liar does not mean that my client is guilty." That is true but that is not the point. I am not saying that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule because it is portrayed badly in movies. I was saying that there is a lot of hostility towards the exclusionary rule and that is reflected in the pop culture.

And I'm saying your evidence is shit, and your argument silly. Law and Order and Dirty Harry are not indicative of what popular culture thinks. Law and Order is a soap opera where Sam Waterston overacts as a ridiculously committed lifetime prosecutor who simply does not exist in real life. Dirty Harry was a cynical Hollywood cartoon which cashed in on a rise in crime during the early 70s.

If there's any connection at all between the art you cite and popular opinion, its the reverse of your hypothesis. I'm willing to bet many people developed views of the exclusionary rule based on what they saw on Law and Order and Dirty Harry. You've got the chicken before the egg. And I'll go one further and bet that on a subconscious level, your own views of the exclusionary rule have been influenced by these fairytales. You wouldn't cite such ludicrously weak evidence to support your point if you hadn't had it lurking somewhere in your mind from the moment you started this inane debate.

I'm not being a dick. This is just what I see.

I get all my attitudes toward criminal law from Boston Legal. Arresting women who take their shirt off at a protest is clearly a violation of their right to free speach, and of some of my rights, too.

Rubbernecking........
 

boo fucking hoo

For Spanks
 

You don't need many cases of massive damages to cause a big problem for a tightly funded police department. Take away sovereign immunity and the limitations on punis, and you'll get a few nasty awards.

As for your other point, it does point up some of the problem with letting civil liability be the remedy. How do you value a trespass on individual rights? And if you can't assign a value, and you leave it to juries, and juries return low values, then you leave enforcement of a constitutional right to the vagaries of local jury panels.

Maybe that's okay, maybe it's not -- has anyone seen a relevant Cops episode? Or maybe Judge Wopner has had something to say on the issue.

And you are saying that in support of your argument that we should get rid of the exclusionary rule. That's where the discussion started. The thread is not about the popular portrayal of the rule, but about whether the rule is a good or bad thing.

Lots of people hate lawyers. Should we get rid of them? Have you seen a criminal defense lawyer portrayed in a good light recently (Hill Street Blues doesn't count as "recent")? Maybe those should be eliminated too (Harry Callahan hates them, after all).

And banning all lobbyists -- that's key too, right?

That was my last argument and therefor the weakest of the bunch. It does not stand on its own, but it just put frosting on the cake. No one has addressed the strongest argument because no one can.

1) The law is not necessary. Without it we can still have a system that protects individual rights. The proof of this? Answer = No one has answered the questions of: What makes the US different from all other developed countries that makes us need the exclusionary rule when most other developed countrys protect civil liberties fine without it?

Why do we need it when all other countrys don't?

Answer = we don't need it.

2) The second arguement is that when it is implemented it can have heinous consequnces. (who can argue with that?).

3) It punishes the wrong person: It punishes the victim of the original crime and not the cops who committed the crime (who can argue with that?).

4) The rule is only useful to you if you are guilty. If you are innocent and suffer from police misconduct it doesn't do you any good (who can argue with that?)

And the last and weakest argument. But still true.

5) The existence of the rule diminishes peoples faith in the criminal justice system (not an argument that by itself would justify eliminating the exclusionary rule, but is just more weight added to all the other arguments).

How do other developed countries protect against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Blimey, I knew that revolution was all bosh!

God Save the Queen!

I can argue with that, very easily.

Let's say that the government is conducting a massive program of secret and unlawful wiretaps. Far-fetched, I know.

How would you enforce the Constitution in this circumstance? Civil damage suits? If that's your first answer, then wait until you pull your head out of your ass before giving your second answer. It's not like the government sends you an e-mail saying "Dear Spanky: For the last six months we have tapped your phone, recording your most intimate and personal conversations and even occasionally replaying them at parties (the ones with Paigow were a real hit). We did not, however, find any evidence that we might use in a prosecution, and we are sending this email to let you know the good news. If you would like to sue us, please reference the attached list of qualified counsel."

The only way that you punish such a program of unlawful evidence-gathering is by prohibiting the government from using the evidence. In the first instance, this will protect the guilty -- but only because the government has broken the law. The real effect of this should be a deterrent effect -- if the government and police are competent and law-abiding, as many truly are -- and the beneficiaries of that deterrent are the innocent, too. And society at large.

Have we paid a price for this benefit? Of course.

But, your notion that only the Exclusionary Rule benefits the guilty, while some other remedy that deters illegal searches does not, is as stupid as your TV-and-movie based arguments. Let's say that, instead of the exclusionary rule, you created a rule that said that any police officer who conducted an unlawful search would forfeit 100% of his personal assets -- but, if a police officer were willing to take that risk, the prosecution could still use the illegally evidence gathered.

If the deterrent works -- and isn't that the point? -- then guilty people will still go free, because you will inhibit the police from gathering evidence. No serious person can argue with the proposition that enforcing constitutional protections makes it harder to catch and convict criminals. But as a society, we have accepted that trade-off. The tradeoff exists, whether you enforce the constitution through the Exclusionary Rule in a single instance, or whether you deter unlawful evidence-gathering through some other mechanism; it is just more starkly apparent in the former instance.

Your dramatic statement -- that anyone who supports the Exclusionary Rule "wants murderers and child molesters to go free" -- is pure crap. The fact is that anyone who supports the Constitution has the same desire. ANY means of deterring unlawful searches -- whether the means we use here, or the means they use in one of the other countries that you've lived in and from which you've provided such valuable insights and statistics -- will, in the end, make the work of law enforcement more difficult, and will result in more criminals going free.

We've chosen liberty over security.

How timely
 

Moussaoui trial back on, with some evidence excluded because the prosecution seems hell bent on losing this thing.

"I don't think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems," she said.

So now you attack my second weakest point (they are in order for a reason). Why not start with the first one and then move your way down?

Actually, I kinda liked Ty's question about your first point. I thought you'd have a simple answer, having practiced crim defense in two other countries and all.

Ha. It's like you've never even seen Legally Blonde 2.

Ouch. You cranked him with that procedural argument.

I think he lost his copy of Spanky's Rules of Civil Procedure.

S.R.Civ.P. 33(b) - All points made by Spanky shall be answered in order of their logical strength.

I thought we went over this before.

I assisted on a few criminal defense cases in Japan. In Japan, if your house was illegally searched and it turned out you were innocent you had a claim against the state. At least that is what I was told. However, in Japan the prosecuters had a ninety nine percent conviction rate, so Japan is not the best place to make a comparison.

In England, and this was in the early nineties when I did my paper on it in law school, if your rights were infringed on by the police you would bring an action against the police and there was a special office set up for such complaints (I think the complaints person was called on Ombudsmen). They had a special fund that was earmarked for such cases.

When it comes to evidence in an English court, the issue before the court is it probative and is it reliable. Police misconduct was handled in a separate action and by a different court. Two separate issues.

An interesting thing to note, is that in this country if the cops do an illegal search of your house and find stolen property or drugs, the stolen property or drugs can't be used against you but you don't get the stuff back. I would prefer the reverse, the stuff can be used as evidence against you but you can get it back.

now that Reese Witherspoon is a serious actress does this become a "good" movie- you know like after Halle won the Oscar for fucking lizard man you could watch Swordfish for the artisitic value?

Most of your "points" are really the same point stated differently. BUt, what the hell.

What makes our country different, first and foremost, is that we've enshrined the freedom from unreasonable search in our Constitution. I seem to recall that we wanted to be different from Europe in this regard.

And then, there's Ty's question: What do other countries do to protect their citizens against unreasonable searches? How effective are those programs?

And, do those programs result in criminals not being arrested? Or have they found some magical way to impose restrictions on law enforcement, without actually making it harder for law enforcement to do its job?

And, absent the exclusionary rule, how would you deter things like illegal wiretaps -- which you never learn of until the evidence gathered by those illegal means is used in a prosecution of someone guilty.

I'm confused. Are we talking about the right to bear arms, or the exclusionary rule?


No one can argue with that. But no one can argue that deterring unlawful searches, thus making police work more difficult, can also have heinous searches.

Unless, of course, you take the position that police should be able to set aside the Constitution if they are really really sure that someone might be guilty of something bad.

In other words, this is the same point as point no. 4, and equally weak.


Again, this is the same point as point no. 4, and deserves the same response. Anytime you make police work more difficult, you bring about the consequence that victims of crimes will not get redress. Unless, again, you say that police are free to violate the Consitution if they are really really sure that someone did something bad.


The same as points 2 and 3, and already addressed. Though I loved your response, which was in essence "I know that argument sucked by why don't you tell me why my other ones suck too."


It is no weight at all, largely because you fail to prove it. I agree that the distorted portrayal that Hollywood gives the exclusionary rule (or did, in the days when Clint Eastwood was thin) may diminish faith in the system. But so did judicial sentencing discrtion -- or, more accurately, the portrayal and perception of that, by Hollywood and by interested politicians. And look where eliminating judicial sentencing discretion got us.



Now, please respond to my questinos, and Tys. And please tell me in full your alternative to ensuring that the government does not violate constitutional rights -- and while doing so, please explain how pepole will enforce their right to sue when the police may not tell them about the illegal search or wiretap, and when police have sovereign immunity, and when municipalities are generally not subject to punitive damages. Also, please explain how you will adjust the system so that, by effectively preventing police from conducting unreasonable searches, you do not inhibit their ability to catch criminals, thus punishing the wrong guy.


Alternatively, just spout the same bullshit you've been spouting for four days, without actually responding to what anyone says. I'm sure eventually we will all believe you.

Did they tell everyone who was subject to an unlawful wiretap about it?

Heavens to Murgatroyd! You mean that there could be -- gasp -- other factors?????

How timely
 

Carla J. Martin is not a happy camper right now. It's hard to believe, really.

Is your substantive right to be free of a search or seizure equally robust in those countries? If so, why do you think that? And what makes you think that the police are equally deterred in those countries?

This is for club, since he seems to care.

You know that is B.S. so I won't respond to that.

1) First Europe has changed a little since we had our revolution.
2) Many other countries have protections from unreasonable searches enshrined in their consitution.
3) The main point which you avoided, which you so love to do, is that the police in these countries without the exclusionary rule have not turned into the Gestapo. It is not my understanding that the police in these countries have run amock because there is no exclusionary rule. I have lived in England, Italy and France and never had a fear of the police. I never felt like I lived in a police state. The Exclusionary rule has heinous consequences and does not seem necessary because other countrys get along without it. Do you really think the citizens of this country are better off because we have the exclusionary rule. Do you really think your rights are better protected?

Again, I told you what they do, and I do not know of a huge outcry throughout Europe clamoring for the Exclusionary rule because their police run amuck.

There police have restritcions. I don't think you would argue that. They don't have the exclusionary rule and yet the police forces in England, Sweden, Denmark, etc con't have reputations for acting like the Gestapo.

There are many ways of combatting illegal actions of the government without the exclusionary rule.


Does it really matter what subject we are talking about? Don't you believe that we should look to other policies in other countries and see what the results of such policies are to determine our own policy. You can spout theories all day, but practical experiments are much more valuable. Western Europe seems to function fine without the exclusionary rule. Why do you think it is so important for us to have when other countries seem to do fine without it?



What makes you think that the exclusionary rule is such a deterrent to cops? Cops are lazy. If they drop a case - what is the bid deal. No skin of their backs.

You keep referring to the Constitution yet there is absolutely no reference to the exclusionary rule in the Constitution.

Again, why penalize the victim. Why not penalize the cop? If a private eye breaks into your house and finds some damning evidence, that evidence can be used against you in the courts. What is your recourse - you can go after the private detective for what they did. Why not teach the cops the same?



I think the most Americans find the exclusioary rule ridiclulous. And for good reason. When you throw away the smoking gun as evidence because it was obtained wrong you are doing an absurd thing. People's instincts on this are absolutely correct and it make the lawyers that defend it look like they could rationalize anything no matter how preposterous. .

I have already explained how it works. What I want to know from you is what is going to go so terribly wrong if we get rid of the rule? Why do you believe there will be such terrible consequences? Do you think things are really that bad in Europe. Are our rights really so much better protected here because of the exclusionary rule?

They seem to do fine without it, what makes you think we are so lame that we can't do the same?

I said from the beginning my main argument was the fact that things are fine in Europe without it and yet this argument was not addressed until today. And quite pathetically I might ad.

You agree that the Exclusionary rule can have some heinous consequences. So we had better have some important reasons for using it. But the reasons for having it all get blown away by the example of Europe (Unless of course you can demonstrate that things are so terrible in Europe that we don't want to imitate them).

Spanky, why do you think other countries do just as good a job at protecting the rights we protect through the Fourth Amendment?

Not really interest, I'm just still waiting for Rove and Cheney to be indicted. October was it? Given the hysteria around here, I would have thought they would have been convicted already.

More on NJ Internet Speech Bill
 

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...ection=Columns

A New Jersey Assemblyman's Internet civility bill is on ice since opponents blasted it as an assault on free speech.

Assemblyman Peter Biondi and his staff said they were trying to curb malicious exchanges on some local discussion boards when they introduced a bill requiring people to provide their real names and addresses before posting on public Web sites. The bill also stated that hosts could be sued for failing to disclose the identities of people disseminating false or defamatory information.

Biondi's staff drafted the measure late last year. In was introduced in January. The bill hadn't even made it to committee before a small weekly newspaper published an article about it and Internet news providers began spreading the word. Then, callers from as far away as Canada deluged Biondi's office with complaints.

"For a bill that's basically one of 45 just sitting there to be picked out – and for people in Portland, Oregon and Canadian broadcasters to be calling about it – it's a little bizarre," Biondi's Chief of Staff Scott Ross said during an interview. "For something that's not even on the radar screen in Trenton, it's incredible. It's definitely a first for us. It hit the Drudge Report and it was like 'Holy moly!"

Ross said that Biondi and his staff were responding to requests from local constituents who complained about the viciousness of local discussion boards littered with name-calling. They were shocked that the bill – drafted to bring decorum to Internet discussions – drew an intense response from Internet users far beyond the Garden State's boundaries.

"We veered out of our comfort zone with this one," Ross said. "We're usually open space, quality-of-life kind of guys. We veered into technology and we were pretty much taken off guard when got hit with a couple hundred e-mails last week."

BuzzMachine blogger and journalist Jeff Jarvis said he is proud to have started the forums that prompted Biondi to introduce the "stupidest legislation in memory."

Critics said the law would be unconstitutional and impossible to enforce. Ross said he can see things from their perspective, but he still believes people should maintain civility online.

"You could be talking to your neighbor and not even know it," he said.

Biondi is anticipating a legal opinion from his state legislature's nonpartisan research division by the end of this week.

Back at ya (from NYT):

• WASHINGTON, March 14 — A former executive editor of The Washington Post was quoted in a magazine article published Tuesday as saying that Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, likely was the official who revealed the identity of the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case to Bob Woodward, an editor and reporter for The Post.
  
  Benjamin C. Bradlee, the Post editor who guided Mr. Woodward's Watergate reporting, is quoted in the article about the leak investigation in the April issue of Vanity Fair as saying, "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption."
  
  The assertion attributed to Mr. Bradlee added the weight of one of the country's best-known editors to months of speculation that Mr. Armitage could be Mr. Woodward's source.
  
  Mr. Armitage has not commented on the matter. On Tuesday, he did not return a reporter's phone call.
  
  In an interview, Mr. Bradlee said that he had been told about Mr. Woodward's source although he did not recall saying the exact words attributed to him by the Vanity Fair reporter. Mr. Bradlee said his information about Mr. Armitage was imprecise, although he said Mr. Armitage's identification as Mr. Woodward's source was "an inference that could be drawn."
  
  A spokesman for Vanity Fair defended the accuracy of the quotes, saying that the author of the article, Marie Brenner, said that she had tape recorded Mr. Bradlee's comments.

"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small."

9/11 was what, five years ago. Moussaoui is just now being convicted. Ours is not a swift, or apparently competent, Justice Department.

Want to wager a month's board fees?

OK, but I'm not sure I care. I still don't understand how whatever Armitage might have said is material to whether Libby committed perjury, or anything else that matters.

That Moussaoui is just now being convicted? I'm pretty sure he pled guilty already, so I'll take that bet.