You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
The vehicle was stopped based on information gained from wire taps. The officer made up the traffic violation in order to not alert potential drug traffickers that he was aware they were most likely transporting drugs. The court found the basis for the stop objectively reasonable based on the reasonable suspicion gained by the wire taps. The vehicle wasn't stopped and search for absolutely no reason at all like the article alleges. I see no issue here.
That was the jist I got. So the ruling was in fact the suspect is guilty. The motion to dismiss the evidence was not accepted due to the above reasoning; but it is not a law. Correct? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it all.
[–]AlphaWookie1 point
0 points
1 point
(+1|-1)
ago
(edited ago)
I had to jump in you got the summary correct. Here is the actual appeals court ruling for those that want to better understand the legal theory and ruling it is only 13 pages long and is pretty simplistic for a legal decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/03/31/14-30249.pdf
In short the ninth circuit get the ruling correct.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] BlizzahdBub 1 point 37 points 38 points (+38|-1) ago
The vehicle was stopped based on information gained from wire taps. The officer made up the traffic violation in order to not alert potential drug traffickers that he was aware they were most likely transporting drugs. The court found the basis for the stop objectively reasonable based on the reasonable suspicion gained by the wire taps. The vehicle wasn't stopped and search for absolutely no reason at all like the article alleges. I see no issue here.
[–] Voluptuous_Panda 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
That was the jist I got. So the ruling was in fact the suspect is guilty. The motion to dismiss the evidence was not accepted due to the above reasoning; but it is not a law. Correct? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it all.
[–] ScreaminMime 3 points -1 points 2 points (+2|-3) ago
Awwww, but my anti-government panties are all jumbled and I have nothing to nerdrage/armchair protest about now...
[–] Diogenes_The_Cynic 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So they already established probable cause?
Its not an issue then.
[–] nakattack ago
From the article, the only possible search/seizure could be the initial wiretap. He probably should have gotten a warrant for the stop too.
Pretty garbage write up on the whole ordal though.
[–] AlphaWookie 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
I had to jump in you got the summary correct. Here is the actual appeals court ruling for those that want to better understand the legal theory and ruling it is only 13 pages long and is pretty simplistic for a legal decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/03/31/14-30249.pdf
In short the ninth circuit get the ruling correct.