I don't like the trend, honestly.
Police is getting pretty paranoid, causing the exact problems they are supposed to cure.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I disagree with your comment below that contraband is contraband - it's one thing if you are crossing the border, where the expectations of privacy are diminished, and it's another if you are using a private airline to fly between possibly private airports within the same country - in my legal ignorance it seems to me that the airline should not check for anything except what can endanger the safety of the plane.

From what I understand, however, the law enforcing agencies like search and seizure by the nature of their job - if they can get more information under any justification, they would go for it. That's not necessarily evil - they are simply trying to be efficient. I guess that's what the exclusionary rule is trying to solve, and it's sad that it's dying.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Contraband In a legal sense has a somewhat different meaning than in a lay sense, and this is how we are using this term. Anything you are not supposed to possess, whether you are bringing it from abroad or not is referred to by that term for some reason, in a fair amount of laws.
If I spoke with you I would have used different terminology in many statements here, so do not go picking on words - I'd rather re-explane it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Nevertheless, Saul and Pasha (er, Paul... hmmm... are they different people) point out too that it was done at the border. What are the legalities of search for contraband on regular flights?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, "contraband" in a legal sense is not "stuff illegally transported from abroad", but rather "stuff you are not supposed to own".
Don't ask.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Okay, who posseses the authority to search you for contraband at the airport? Airline workers? TSA?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From what I understand, airline workers do not do the search. It is the airport security +immigration authorities whenever people are coming from abroad.

If you ask myopinion, smeone just dimes out this particular guy and the authorities knew what they were searching for.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

US authorities - да. Им же из Канады передали информацию.

(Reply) (Parent)

I think that trend has began with the Burger Court in the late 60s - early 70s. I just think the courts (and the population) have not gotten behind the concept that the appropriate remedy for violation of the 4th Amendment is exclusion of the illegally obtained evidence.

The idea was that if cops were made of aware of all those guilty folks being released on the account of the 4th Amendment violations, the cops will sin no more. Alas, that has not happened. I believe there was several studies done, which showed that cops are rarely made aware of the connection between their conduct and the resolution of a case. And when they are made aware, the blame was usually assigned to either crooked defense lawyers or damn liberal judges:)

I think that ultimately, the exclusionary rule will be gone. I am not even sure it is such a bad idea. If the policy rationale for it has not worked, and we are not enforcing it honestly anyway, it's a right without a remedy and we should get rid of it.

As for the effect on our clients, may be they will stop breaking the law:)) It's time even they realized (1) despite statements from the court to the contrary, the system will resolve every doubt AGAINST a criminal defendant; and (2) the big money is in white collar crime:)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I will miss the exclusionary rule... As you too probably, we have a whole set of smaples called "walking while black" motions.

You are totally right, cops never learn their lesson. Not even in course of the cross examination, when they are asked directly: "okay, so did you wipe his hands with a kleenex to see if any residue is left" - "Neeee" - "Did you do a paraphine test?" - "Wastha...er... mam, what's that?"

I cannot think of a good supplement for the idea of unreasonable search though...:) But assuredly, if that trend ends where we think I am so totally switching my whole practice to 1983 claims:)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

As to the 1983 claims, it will keep the prisoners occupied during those long sentences for stealing a pizza or smoking a joint:)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

+1:)

(Reply) (Parent)