Comments on: Virginia v. Moore in Texas http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html the tao of criminal defense trial lawyering Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:28:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mark Bennett http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html/comment-page-1#comment-3022 Mark Bennett Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:06:10 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html#comment-3022 Jigmeister, Sure, a statutory exclusionary rule would be a state legislative function. So is deciding what is and what is not a crime. So is deciding whether a crime is arrestable or not. The Court's rationale that linking Fourth Amendment protections to state law would cause them to "vary from place to place and from time to time" is farcical: Fourth Amendment protections are <i>inseparably</i> linked to state law -- what is illegal in one state (so that an arrest might justify a search) is often legal in another, so conduct that would justify a search in one state is perfectly okay in another. Moreover, conduct that would justify a search (in the Court's view) in one city is sometimes perfectly okay in another. Furthermore, conduct that would justify a search in one part of a city is sometimes perfectly okay in another. Jigmeister,

Sure, a statutory exclusionary rule would be a state legislative function.

So is deciding what is and what is not a crime.

So is deciding whether a crime is arrestable or not.

The Court’s rationale that linking Fourth Amendment protections to state law would cause them to “vary from place to place and from time to time” is farcical: Fourth Amendment protections are inseparably linked to state law — what is illegal in one state (so that an arrest might justify a search) is often legal in another, so conduct that would justify a search in one state is perfectly okay in another.

Moreover, conduct that would justify a search (in the Court’s view) in one city is sometimes perfectly okay in another.

Furthermore, conduct that would justify a search in one part of a city is sometimes perfectly okay in another.

]]> By: Jigmeister http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html/comment-page-1#comment-3008 Jigmeister Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:24:01 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html#comment-3008 It would have been surprising had Scotus decided the other way. The rationale is: " But their state’s Supreme Court has found that the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of evidence gathered during such a(n).. arrest..." The court only said that the 4th does not require supression if there was probable cause, and there apparently was. If Va. wants a 38.23, that's a STATE legislative function. It would have been surprising had Scotus decided the other way. The rationale is: ” But their state’s Supreme Court has found that the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of evidence gathered during such a(n).. arrest…”

The court only said that the 4th does not require supression if there was probable cause, and there apparently was. If Va. wants a 38.23, that’s a STATE legislative function.

]]> By: Windypundit http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html/comment-page-1#comment-3006 Windypundit Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:53:07 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html#comment-3006 Thank God we still have the Third Amendment! Thank God we still have the Third Amendment!

]]> By: Mark Bennett http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html/comment-page-1#comment-3002 Mark Bennett Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:43:17 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html#comment-3002 He's been pretty good on the Sixth Amendment in recent years, but he's got problems with the Fourth. He’s been pretty good on the Sixth Amendment in recent years, but he’s got problems with the Fourth.

]]> By: Ron in Houston http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html/comment-page-1#comment-3001 Ron in Houston Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:30:12 +0000 http://bennettandbennett.com/blog/2008/04/virginia-v-moore-in-texas.html#comment-3001 Well, anytime Scalia writes the majority opinion, civil libertarians need to start passing around the KY jelly. Well, anytime Scalia writes the majority opinion, civil libertarians need to start passing around the KY jelly.

]]>