Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Fourth Amendment Loooooove Apple

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    Someone sent me this; I pass it on: The Fourth Amendment Loooooove Apple Thomas Jefferson
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 14, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Someone sent me this; I pass it on:

      The Fourth Amendment Loooooove Apple

      <http://www.court-o-rama.org/index.php?category=Criminal&post=poison>

      Thomas Jefferson shocked people by walking down the middle of the street
      eating a tomato.
      Why was this horrifying? Not because tomatoes are better when sliced
      onto a BLT or baked with eggs inside of them, but because at that time
      tomatoes (a.k.a. love apples) were thought to be poisonous.
      Jefferson didn't keel over, and the rest is fruit (or is it
      vegetable?) history.
      Tomorrow, the SCOTUS will hear arguments regarding whether the fruit of
      the poisonous tree we all avoid -- evidence that must be suppressed
      because it was obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment protections --
      is actually OK to eat.
      In Virginia, anyone charged with a misdemeanor must be issued a summons
      and released. Here, however, the misdemeanant stopped on suspicion of
      driving with a suspended license was arrested, after which point
      officers found crack.
      Much sta-fed fun ensues!
      Virginia, rather than decide to change their own law (how many
      Virginians does it take to change a lightbulb? "What, change?!?"),
      disses it instead: "the Constitutional standard of probable cause, not
      the vagaries of state law, should continue to determine the
      constitutionality of an arrest." Go ahead and eat it, it's safe!
      Probable cause is probable cause.
      Amicus briefs filed by other states, counties, and territories (Alabama,
      Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan + Wayne County,
      Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
      Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, and
      Wyoming) worry that if, as here, a violation of state law (the unlawful
      arrest) requires a federal constitutional remedy (suppression), the
      remedy would vary so much from state to state so as to completely jostle
      precedent.
      The defendant, meanwhile, points the Commonwealth to its own Code, the
      usual case law suspects, and a host of other authorities -- ABA
      standards, ALI model codes, Blackstone, NCCUSL, and more to show that
      the fruit from the poisonous tree is indeed yuckky, and always has been.
      Is it worse to interpret the U.S. Constitution through the lens of each
      individual state's laws, or to respect state choices by taking their
      laws into account? Ceiling or floor? To-MAY-to or to-MAH-to?
      We shall see.
      The case is Virginia v. Moore. The SCOTUSWiki has a nice rundown by Lyle
      Denniston.
      See also Virginia v. Moore, Kent Scheidegger, Crime & Consequences
      (January 8, 2008), predicting that the Court will overturn Mapp; but Why
      the Defendant Should Win in Virginia v. Moore, Orin Kerr, Volokh
      Conspiracy (January 7, 2008), disagrees
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.