3 ms·

Our criminal justice system is designed to (except apparently at the federal level) keep it from being used against dissidents, but this is one case where the r

by smoyer 13y ago

Our criminal justice system is designed to (except apparently at the federal level) keep it from being used against dissidents, but this is one case where the rules for evidence collection helped produce the wrong result. What he did was completely reprehensible and while the courts have ruled, that doesn't mean that society shouldn't punish this behavior. As someone below noted, nobody knows who he is, but we can change that ... and I hope that RadiumOne's customers care enough to find another vendor. EDIT: Did anyone else find the line "Security footage from his bedroom" a bit creepy?

downandout 13y ago
"Did anyone else find the line "Security footage from his bedroom" a bit creepy?" That was actually my first thought when I saw this. It's kind of fitting that his kinky-cam setup almost landed him a very stiff prison sentence.
rayiner 13y ago
> Our criminal justice system is designed to (except apparently at the federal level) keep it from being used against dissidents, but this is one case where the rules for evidence collection helped produce the wrong result. I think you would be surprised at the ratio of dissidents to scumbags that actually invoke the 4th amendment. This case is the common case, not the outlier. It's a scumbag who clearly did something bad that's getting off because the cops obtained evidence in violation of the 4th amendment. I think this was the right result, because this was a square fourth amendment violation (search in a home), but you can see why the 4th amendment is so politically unpopular and constantly under attack. Ordinary people don't really think or care about the dissidents. They just see guys like this get off on a "technicality."
- defen 13y ago
  Can you comment on why this was a 4th amendment violation? It seems like the police were legitimately called to the scene of a crime-in-progress and found evidence of said crime. If they had found cocaine instead of a video of a violent attack, would that also have been inadmissible in a court of law?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    As a background consideration, keep in mind that we're talking about the search of a house, which is the absolute heart of the 4th amendment. Warrantless entry and search of a house is considered per se unreasonable under the 4th amendment. There are a few narrow exceptions. First, a warrant is not required when the sole occupant of the house consents.[1] However, in a situation like this one where the defendant is present, his objection is enough to render the entry unlawful, even if the other person consents.[2] Second, even if there is no consent, there are a few narrow exceptions the police can use. One of those is when "exigent circumstances" require the police to enter to prevent bodily harm or the destruction of evidence. But even in such cases, the acceptable scope of a warrantless search is limited by the circumstances that give rise to the exigency.[3] So in this case, the girlfriend called the police saying he was threatening to kill her, which would justify, under the exigent circumstances exception, their entry onto the property. However, that did not authorize them to conduct a search of the house for evidence of domestic violence. The scope of their entry and search should have been limited to the exigent circumstance that justified the warrentless entry: ensuring her immediate safety. The police raised "possible destruction of evidence" as a reason for the search, but they had no reason to believe, until they searched, that there was evidence to preserve. The exigent circumstances that justified the entry was securing the safety of the girlfriend. Once they entered, they cannot shift their theory and say the exigent circumstance is preventing the destruction of evidence. As for drugs, it depends. One of the other exceptions to the 4th amendment is that police are entitled to seize evidence in "plain view" during an otherwise lawful entry.[4] Had there been drugs strewn around the house, they would have been admissible. However, the video evidence was not in plain view. They had to go looking for it. If the police have to go looking for it, then that evidence is not admissible. That is true even when the evidence is drugs. [1] Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. __ (2014). [2] Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). [3] Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). [4] Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
    - defen 13y ago
      Very interesting, thanks. Follow up question: if the girlfriend had said something like "There's a camera in the closet that recorded all this, and he'll probably erase it when you leave" - do you think that would have been sufficient to make it not a fourth amendment violation? The idea being that they were told about it by the victim, rather than searching for it.
EC1 13y ago
Let's not start another needless witch-hunt. We already see what it did to Brandon Eich.
- ossreality 13y ago
  He tried to suffocate his girlfriend and hit her 117 times in a half hour. Plainly, what the FUCK is wrong with you?

by smoyer 13y ago

downandout 13y ago

"Did anyone else find the line "Security footage from his bedroom" a bit creepy?" That was actually my first thought when I saw this. It's kind of fitting that his kinky-cam setup almost landed him a very stiff prison sentence.

rayiner 13y ago

> Our criminal justice system is designed to (except apparently at the federal level) keep it from being used against dissidents, but this is one case where the rules for evidence collection helped produce the wrong result. I think you would be surprised at the ratio of dissidents to scumbags that actually invoke the 4th amendment. This case is the common case, not the outlier. It's a scumbag who clearly did something bad that's getting off because the cops obtained evidence in violation of the 4th amendment. I think this was the right result, because this was a square fourth amendment violation (search in a home), but you can see why the 4th amendment is so politically unpopular and constantly under attack. Ordinary people don't really think or care about the dissidents. They just see guys like this get off on a "technicality."

defen 13y ago
Can you comment on why this was a 4th amendment violation? It seems like the police were legitimately called to the scene of a crime-in-progress and found evidence of said crime. If they had found cocaine instead of a video of a violent attack, would that also have been inadmissible in a court of law?
- rayiner 13y ago
  As a background consideration, keep in mind that we're talking about the search of a house, which is the absolute heart of the 4th amendment. Warrantless entry and search of a house is considered per se unreasonable under the 4th amendment. There are a few narrow exceptions. First, a warrant is not required when the sole occupant of the house consents.[1] However, in a situation like this one where the defendant is present, his objection is enough to render the entry unlawful, even if the other person consents.[2] Second, even if there is no consent, there are a few narrow exceptions the police can use. One of those is when "exigent circumstances" require the police to enter to prevent bodily harm or the destruction of evidence. But even in such cases, the acceptable scope of a warrantless search is limited by the circumstances that give rise to the exigency.[3] So in this case, the girlfriend called the police saying he was threatening to kill her, which would justify, under the exigent circumstances exception, their entry onto the property. However, that did not authorize them to conduct a search of the house for evidence of domestic violence. The scope of their entry and search should have been limited to the exigent circumstance that justified the warrentless entry: ensuring her immediate safety. The police raised "possible destruction of evidence" as a reason for the search, but they had no reason to believe, until they searched, that there was evidence to preserve. The exigent circumstances that justified the entry was securing the safety of the girlfriend. Once they entered, they cannot shift their theory and say the exigent circumstance is preventing the destruction of evidence. As for drugs, it depends. One of the other exceptions to the 4th amendment is that police are entitled to seize evidence in "plain view" during an otherwise lawful entry.[4] Had there been drugs strewn around the house, they would have been admissible. However, the video evidence was not in plain view. They had to go looking for it. If the police have to go looking for it, then that evidence is not admissible. That is true even when the evidence is drugs. [1] Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. __ (2014). [2] Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). [3] Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978). [4] Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
  - defen 13y ago
    Very interesting, thanks. Follow up question: if the girlfriend had said something like "There's a camera in the closet that recorded all this, and he'll probably erase it when you leave" - do you think that would have been sufficient to make it not a fourth amendment violation? The idea being that they were told about it by the victim, rather than searching for it.

EC1 13y ago

Let's not start another needless witch-hunt. We already see what it did to Brandon Eich.

ossreality 13y ago
He tried to suffocate his girlfriend and hit her 117 times in a half hour. Plainly, what the FUCK is wrong with you?