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.