Politics > Politics-USA > Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" |
| Date: |
11 Jul 2006 08:46:19 PM |
| Object: |
Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
Judge says state constitution overrides the SC ruling.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/11/vermont_judge_rejects_us_supreme_court_search_ruling/?p1=email_to_a_friend
Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling
July 11, 2006
GUILDHALL, Vt. --A Vermont District Court judge has rejected a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a private
home, concluding that the state offers greater protections in such
cases.
Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police must
knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if they
have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they find could
be thrown out.
The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first
knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply in
Vermont.
"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the
result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of
state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as precedent.
"Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred
rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process,
distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct."
A defense lawyer in the Vermont case said Bent's ruling was an
important statement. "Sanity prevails in Vermont," said attorney David
Williams.
Bent agreed with the dissenting opinion in the federal case, which
said allowing otherwise illegally obtained evidence to be used could
lead law enforcement officers to ignore the law.
"The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect," Bent
wrote, "at least in our small corner of the nation."
Unless the attorney general's office appeals Bent's ruling to the
Vermont Supreme Court, it applies only to the drug case he was hearing
and would not be binding on other judges, legal experts said. But
other judges are likely to take it into consideration if they have
similar issues, said Cheryl Hannah, a Vermont Law School professor.
(snip)
.
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
12 Jul 2006 12:19:19 PM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.politics.bush:
Judge says state constitution overrides the SC ruling.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/11/vermont_ju
dge_rejects_us_supreme_court_search_ruling/?p1=email_to_a_friend
Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling
July 11, 2006
GUILDHALL, Vt. --A Vermont District Court judge has rejected a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a private
home, concluding that the state offers greater protections in such
cases.
Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police must
knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if they
have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they find could
be thrown out.
The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first
knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply in
Vermont.
"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the
result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of
state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as precedent.
"Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred
rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process,
distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct."
A defense lawyer in the Vermont case said Bent's ruling was an
important statement. "Sanity prevails in Vermont," said attorney David
Williams.
Bent agreed with the dissenting opinion in the federal case, which
said allowing otherwise illegally obtained evidence to be used could
lead law enforcement officers to ignore the law.
"The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect," Bent
wrote, "at least in our small corner of the nation."
Unless the attorney general's office appeals Bent's ruling to the
Vermont Supreme Court, it applies only to the drug case he was hearing
and would not be binding on other judges, legal experts said. But
other judges are likely to take it into consideration if they have
similar issues, said Cheryl Hannah, a Vermont Law School professor.
There is no contradiction of the SCotUS per se.
SCotUS only ruled that the individual had fewer rights than he thought
against the state.
If the state, through its laws and/or constitution, actually wishes to
grant those rights above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution states, it
can.
Nothing of what the judge did trumps federal laws or the US Constitution,
which he would not do.
The state of Vermont would appeal the judge's ruling only if it thought he
incorrectly interpreted Vermont state laws or the state constitution. It
could not seek a RIGHT as a government entity against the individual to
enforce law in a no-knock search manner for the purpose of actually
overruling explicit or implicit interpretations of state laws or
constitution.
Of course that the judge gave his opinion in a way that expresses contempt
for the decision of SCotUS majority is interesting, although it has no
judicial impact. (What are the fancy Latin words legal scholars use to
describe that part of the text of judge's rulings that basically expresses
their opinions, and that part of the text of the ruling that carries the
weight of causing a change to law?)
--
For every 40 things you do,
it is human nature to blame you
for the 1 thing you did wrong and
yell about it, and to overlook
the 39 things you did right and
praise you for them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hob" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
12 Jul 2006 04:52:21 PM |
|
|
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote
in message news:Xns97FECEB962FFCWSAP1960@207.115.17.102...
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.politics.bush:
Judge says state constitution overrides the SC ruling.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/11/vermont_ju
dge_rejects_us_supreme_court_search_ruling/?p1=email_to_a_friend
Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling
July 11, 2006
GUILDHALL, Vt. --A Vermont District Court judge has rejected a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a private
home, concluding that the state offers greater protections in such
cases.
Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police must
knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if they
have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they find could
be thrown out.
The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first
knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply in
Vermont.
"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the
result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of
state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as precedent.
"Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred
rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process,
distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct."
A defense lawyer in the Vermont case said Bent's ruling was an
important statement. "Sanity prevails in Vermont," said attorney David
Williams.
Bent agreed with the dissenting opinion in the federal case, which
said allowing otherwise illegally obtained evidence to be used could
lead law enforcement officers to ignore the law.
"The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect," Bent
wrote, "at least in our small corner of the nation."
Unless the attorney general's office appeals Bent's ruling to the
Vermont Supreme Court, it applies only to the drug case he was hearing
and would not be binding on other judges, legal experts said. But
other judges are likely to take it into consideration if they have
similar issues, said Cheryl Hannah, a Vermont Law School professor.
There is no contradiction of the SCotUS per se.
SCotUS only ruled that the individual had fewer rights than he thought
against the state.
If the state, through its laws and/or constitution, actually wishes to
grant those rights above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution states, it
can.
According to the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, the various
federal, state, and local governments do not have any rights to give. All
rights are reserved for the people.
Nothing of what the judge did trumps federal laws or the US Constitution,
which he would not do.
The state of Vermont would appeal the judge's ruling only if it thought he
incorrectly interpreted Vermont state laws or the state constitution. It
could not seek a RIGHT as a government entity against the individual to
enforce law in a no-knock search manner for the purpose of actually
overruling explicit or implicit interpretations of state laws or
constitution.
Of course that the judge gave his opinion in a way that expresses contempt
for the decision of SCotUS majority is interesting, although it has no
judicial impact. (What are the fancy Latin words legal scholars use to
describe that part of the text of judge's rulings that basically expresses
their opinions, and that part of the text of the ruling that carries the
weight of causing a change to law?)
--
For every 40 things you do,
it is human nature to blame you
for the 1 thing you did wrong and
yell about it, and to overlook
the 39 things you did right and
praise you for them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Winston Smith, American Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
12 Jul 2006 10:26:37 PM |
|
|
"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in alt.politics.bush:
"Winston Smith, American Patriot" <FranzKafka@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV>
wrote in message news:Xns97FECEB962FFCWSAP1960@207.115.17.102...
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.politics.bush:
Judge says state constitution overrides the SC ruling.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/11/vermont
_ju
dge_rejects_us_supreme_court_search_ruling/?p1=email_to_a_friend
Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling
July 11, 2006
GUILDHALL, Vt. --A Vermont District Court judge has rejected a
recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a
private home, concluding that the state offers greater protections
in such cases.
Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police
must
knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if
they have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they
find could be thrown out.
The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first
knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply
in Vermont.
"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as
the result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter
of state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as
precedent. "Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our
most sacred rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our
judicial process, distorts any notion of fairness and encourages
official misconduct."
A defense lawyer in the Vermont case said Bent's ruling was an
important statement. "Sanity prevails in Vermont," said attorney
David Williams.
Bent agreed with the dissenting opinion in the federal case, which
said allowing otherwise illegally obtained evidence to be used
could lead law enforcement officers to ignore the law.
"The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect,"
Bent wrote, "at least in our small corner of the nation."
Unless the attorney general's office appeals Bent's ruling to the
Vermont Supreme Court, it applies only to the drug case he was
hearing and would not be binding on other judges, legal experts
said. But other judges are likely to take it into consideration if
they have similar issues, said Cheryl Hannah, a Vermont Law School
professor.
There is no contradiction of the SCotUS per se.
SCotUS only ruled that the individual had fewer rights than he
thought against the state.
If the state, through its laws and/or constitution, actually wishes
to grant those rights above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution
states, it can.
According to the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, the various
federal, state, and local governments do not have any rights to give.
All rights are reserved for the people.
Well, the new majority on SCotUS, Clarence Scalitoberts, apparently reads
the 9th differently.
Nothing of what the judge did trumps federal laws or the US
Constitution, which he would not do.
The state of Vermont would appeal the judge's ruling only if it
thought he incorrectly interpreted Vermont state laws or the state
constitution. It could not seek a RIGHT as a government entity
against the individual to enforce law in a no-knock search manner for
the purpose of actually overruling explicit or implicit
interpretations of state laws or constitution.
Of course that the judge gave his opinion in a way that expresses
contempt for the decision of SCotUS majority is interesting, although
it has no judicial impact. (What are the fancy Latin words legal
scholars use to describe that part of the text of judge's rulings
that basically expresses their opinions, and that part of the text of
the ruling that carries the weight of causing a change to law?)
--
For every 40 things you do,
it is human nature to blame you
for the 1 thing you did wrong and
yell about it, and to overlook
the 39 things you did right and
praise you for them.
--
For every 40 things you do,
it is human nature to blame you
for the 1 thing you did wrong and
yell about it, and to overlook
the 39 things you did right and
praise you for them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nuki Mouse" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
13 Jul 2006 04:44:58 AM |
|
|
"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_KadnW9f1vt38yjZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
[snip]
If the state, through its laws and/or constitution, actually wishes to
grant those rights above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution states, it
can.
According to the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, the various
federal, state, and local governments do not have any rights to give. All
rights are reserved for the people.
That is NOT what the 9th amendment means. It means that just because a
certain right is not specifically mentioned (enumerated) in the US
Constitution does not mean that right does not exist.
Nuki Mouse
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it," S. Tallentyre, summarizing Voltaire's views.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hob" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
13 Jul 2006 11:18:46 AM |
|
|
"Nuki Mouse" <Nuki_mouse@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:e957ho096s@news3.newsguy.com...
"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_KadnW9f1vt38yjZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
[snip]
If the state, through its laws and/or constitution, actually wishes to
grant those rights above and beyond what the U.S. Constitution states,
it
can.
According to the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, the various
federal, state, and local governments do not have any rights to give.
All
rights are reserved for the people.
That is NOT what the 9th amendment means. It means that just because a
certain right is not specifically mentioned (enumerated) in the US
Constitution does not mean that right does not exist.
I think the Ninth speaks for itself on whose rights they are
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain RIGHTS shall not be
construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."
FROM JAMES MADISON, author of the Ninth amendment, when he proposed it
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating
particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights
which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by
implication that those rights which were not singled out were intended to be
assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently
insecure.
Note that the concern of the assembly is that the Goverrnment might consider
other rights as theirs, to be doled out or denied. It was NOT that someone
might think there were no other rights existing.
Madison continues"
"This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the
admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may
be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to
the last clause of the fourth resolution [Nonth Amnedment]
Nuki Mouse
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it," S. Tallentyre, summarizing Voltaire's views.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "granitegriz" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
12 Jul 2006 03:24:14 PM |
|
|
I suppose this Judge would give the occupant three minutes to answer the
door also. Just enough to dispose of the evidence, right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Oinka" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
12 Jul 2006 04:57:57 PM |
|
|
Anybody that came busting through my door wouldn't live three minutes.
The dogs would hold them off long enough for me to put a round in each
head.
No knock means no brains -- literally.
A man's home is his castle.
granitegriz wrote:
I suppose this Judge would give the occupant three minutes to answer the
door also. Just enough to dispose of the evidence, right.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Oinka" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
12 Jul 2006 04:58:09 PM |
|
|
Anybody that came busting through my door wouldn't live three minutes.
The dogs would hold them off long enough for me to put a round in each
head.
No knock means no brains -- literally.
A man's home is his castle.
granitegriz wrote:
I suppose this Judge would give the occupant three minutes to answer the
door also. Just enough to dispose of the evidence, right.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GW Chimpzillas Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" |
|
| Title: Re: Vermont tells Supreme Court to shove it's no-knock search warrant ruling - THIS IS BIG |
11 Jul 2006 09:32:45 PM |
|
|
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
Judge says state constitution overrides the SC ruling.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/11/vermont_judge_rejects_us_supreme_court_search_ruling/?p1=email_to_a_friend
Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling
July 11, 2006
GUILDHALL, Vt. --A Vermont District Court judge has rejected a recent
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a private
home, concluding that the state offers greater protections in such
cases.
Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police must
knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if they
have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they find could
be thrown out.
The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first
knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply in
Vermont.
"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the
result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of
state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as precedent.
"Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred
rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process,
distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct."
good one!
A defense lawyer in the Vermont case said Bent's ruling was an
important statement. "Sanity prevails in Vermont," said attorney David
Williams.
Bent agreed with the dissenting opinion in the federal case, which
said allowing otherwise illegally obtained evidence to be used could
lead law enforcement officers to ignore the law.
"The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect," Bent
wrote, "at least in our small corner of the nation."
Unless the attorney general's office appeals Bent's ruling to the
Vermont Supreme Court, it applies only to the drug case he was hearing
and would not be binding on other judges, legal experts said. But
other judges are likely to take it into consideration if they have
similar issues, said Cheryl Hannah, a Vermont Law School professor.
(snip)
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
