3 ms·

I said an example. If you're found with a dead body in your trunk for example, that will not be thrown out on a technicality, especially if it was found during

I said an example. If you're found with a dead body in your trunk for example, that will not be thrown out on a technicality, especially if it was found during an otherwise legal search. I don't have the case law memorized but I've heard lawyers discuss it before. If you do some research you will find exceptions to 4th amendment protections, such as the ones in this article: https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/the-fourth-... Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol

psd1 2y ago
> Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol Instant downvote.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  This is exactly why I don't comment on Reddit, because a bunch of jerks who have nothing to say just downvote me.
  - psd1 2y ago
    If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe you've got shit on your shoe.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Or maybe there actually are jerks everywhere, especially on sites with similar roots and mechanics.
giantg2 2y ago
I meant actual case law examples. If it's a body in plain view during the other search, then that falls under the plain view exception. If it's somehow concealed in a way that they can't tell what it is, then they shouldn't be able to use it. Of course judges would use every avenue possible to side with the police on an issue of murder (assuming it was murder and not just a corpse from some other reason).
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Here is one, that was a pain in the ass to find: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted. This one might be interesting too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans Even an error in a warrant might not save you. You'd just be an idiot to think that your dead body in the trunk would be excluded as evidence during any search, much less a lawful search. Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant, only probable cause like "I smelled something" or "The suspect was acting erratic/intoxicated" which is your word vs. theirs. If you find a case where a murderer was uncovered during a lawful search and that evidence was thrown out due to it being off topic, please let me know.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    "In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted." Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier. "Even an error in a warrant might not save you." Yeah, depends on the error and the good faith excpetion. "Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant," Yes, I mentioned that in other comments. But that probable cause is supposed to follow the same standards. It's just expedited by cutting out the judge. That example would be hard to find because anything they find could be potentially covered under the independent source avenue. But that has to come from a separate warrant. Since murders don't have a statute of limitations, that's open ended and would almost always result in a secondary search even if the first search evidence was thrown out.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier. I think there is more than one plain view exception. Things in plain view from outside your protected space are definitely fair game but that is not what that case describes. Things were found in plain view while conducting a search for another reason. So, presumably, if your garage was being searched for a stolen car, that would not cover discoveries made while digging through boxes in there. But if they were digging through boxes for stolen property and found evidence of another crime, they could use it. The contents of opaque boxes are not in "plain view" but can be uncovered in an unrelated search. Can a discovery from an illegal search give probable cause for another search? I think it can. There are many ways the 4th amendment can fall apart in practice. All I was saying in the first comment (that I remember) is that evidence of additional crimes is admissible if it was found during a legal search for some other purpose. Needless to say, there are also many situations where an officer can lie about probable cause and get away with it. Juries and judges care more about stopping crime than the privacy rights of criminals. Only the most blatant violations of the 4th amendment ever work against the state from what I've seen. And if you're innocent, you can complain. But the complaints rarely go anywhere either.
spacebacon 2y ago
Algorithmic downvote. Maybe “gag factor”. Just guessing.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Is that a thing here? I have felt like I was being stalked and/or downvoted systematically by some BS algorithm.
  - spacebacon 2y ago
    It’s a really good algorithm imo designed to reduce the flame war we see everywhere else but here online. As we stumble in hacker news half beat and fully traumatized from the rest of the internet it’s nice to know I can’t even start a flame war here if I wanted to. Contro-factor maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 What’s more interesting is how easy hacker news can detect a boiled egg. Only the most refined version of a red head can make it here on hacker news. One must veil their agitations in deep plausible deniability to get past the gate. Embrace the vanilla and refine your penmanship.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      People post similar comments with opposite views as mine. So there must be something else going on. Maybe if a few people downvote you, HN downvotes you everywhere else. Or else, the site prefers a few viewpoints and has a way to detect negative responses to those views. Either way, it is very offputting. I don't appreciate someone putting their thumb on the scales. I can't even downvote at this point due to not enough points, and at the rate it's going I might be able to do it like next year. Then there's the "You're posting too fast" thing. I think fast and people respond with predictable stuff to my comments. I can only respond to like 2 of them at once or I won't be able to comment on anything else for hours. I don't think there's anything wrong with spirited discussions. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Simple argument does not make it a flame war.
      - 2y ago

psd1 2y ago

> Who are these dorks downvoting me so much? Lol Instant downvote.

wakawaka28 2y ago
This is exactly why I don't comment on Reddit, because a bunch of jerks who have nothing to say just downvote me.
- psd1 2y ago
  If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe you've got shit on your shoe.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Or maybe there actually are jerks everywhere, especially on sites with similar roots and mechanics.

giantg2 2y ago

I meant actual case law examples. If it's a body in plain view during the other search, then that falls under the plain view exception. If it's somehow concealed in a way that they can't tell what it is, then they shouldn't be able to use it. Of course judges would use every avenue possible to side with the police on an issue of murder (assuming it was murder and not just a corpse from some other reason).

wakawaka28 2y ago
Here is one, that was a pain in the ass to find: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/128/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_v._California In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted. This one might be interesting too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Evans Even an error in a warrant might not save you. You'd just be an idiot to think that your dead body in the trunk would be excluded as evidence during any search, much less a lawful search. Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant, only probable cause like "I smelled something" or "The suspect was acting erratic/intoxicated" which is your word vs. theirs. If you find a case where a murderer was uncovered during a lawful search and that evidence was thrown out due to it being off topic, please let me know.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "In that one a lawful search turned up unexpected items, and those items were permitted." Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier. "Even an error in a warrant might not save you." Yeah, depends on the error and the good faith excpetion. "Searches of cars are special as well and do not require a warrant," Yes, I mentioned that in other comments. But that probable cause is supposed to follow the same standards. It's just expedited by cutting out the judge. That example would be hard to find because anything they find could be potentially covered under the independent source avenue. But that has to come from a separate warrant. Since murders don't have a statute of limitations, that's open ended and would almost always result in a secondary search even if the first search evidence was thrown out.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >Yes, that's the plain view exception I mentioned earlier. I think there is more than one plain view exception. Things in plain view from outside your protected space are definitely fair game but that is not what that case describes. Things were found in plain view while conducting a search for another reason. So, presumably, if your garage was being searched for a stolen car, that would not cover discoveries made while digging through boxes in there. But if they were digging through boxes for stolen property and found evidence of another crime, they could use it. The contents of opaque boxes are not in "plain view" but can be uncovered in an unrelated search. Can a discovery from an illegal search give probable cause for another search? I think it can. There are many ways the 4th amendment can fall apart in practice. All I was saying in the first comment (that I remember) is that evidence of additional crimes is admissible if it was found during a legal search for some other purpose. Needless to say, there are also many situations where an officer can lie about probable cause and get away with it. Juries and judges care more about stopping crime than the privacy rights of criminals. Only the most blatant violations of the 4th amendment ever work against the state from what I've seen. And if you're innocent, you can complain. But the complaints rarely go anywhere either.

spacebacon 2y ago

Algorithmic downvote. Maybe “gag factor”. Just guessing.

wakawaka28 2y ago
Is that a thing here? I have felt like I was being stalked and/or downvoted systematically by some BS algorithm.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  It’s a really good algorithm imo designed to reduce the flame war we see everywhere else but here online. As we stumble in hacker news half beat and fully traumatized from the rest of the internet it’s nice to know I can’t even start a flame war here if I wanted to. Contro-factor maybe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1781417 What’s more interesting is how easy hacker news can detect a boiled egg. Only the most refined version of a red head can make it here on hacker news. One must veil their agitations in deep plausible deniability to get past the gate. Embrace the vanilla and refine your penmanship.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    People post similar comments with opposite views as mine. So there must be something else going on. Maybe if a few people downvote you, HN downvotes you everywhere else. Or else, the site prefers a few viewpoints and has a way to detect negative responses to those views. Either way, it is very offputting. I don't appreciate someone putting their thumb on the scales. I can't even downvote at this point due to not enough points, and at the rate it's going I might be able to do it like next year. Then there's the "You're posting too fast" thing. I think fast and people respond with predictable stuff to my comments. I can only respond to like 2 of them at once or I won't be able to comment on anything else for hours. I don't think there's anything wrong with spirited discussions. If you don't want to participate, then don't. Simple argument does not make it a flame war.
    - 2y ago