Privacy & Security

Supreme Court Upholds the “‘Barney Fife” Exception to the Constitution [Part II]

In my last post, I described an appalling Supreme Court decision that eviscerates the "exclusionary rule" to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.  This right is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Essentially, if police mistakenly arrest you based on faulty information, they can still use any evidence they seize against you in a subsequent prosecution.  The only requirement is that the error results from "isolated negligence."

Imagine that you're driving down the highway and police stop your vehicle. Based on faulty information on their computers, they arrest you based on a warrant that never existed, or that has expired. Under the search incident to arrest doctrine I described in Part I, they search you and your car. They also copy all the information in your laptop and your cell phone. But, after a few minutes, they apologize.

"Oops, we made a mistake…there was no warrant. But you're under arrest anyway, for conspiracy, because we found a text message in your phone to someone we arrested last week for drug trafficking." Under the newly created Barney Fife exception to the U.S. Constitution, this is now perfectly legal.

It's also not hard to imagine police deliberately neglecting to update arrest warrant records. This couldn't happen too often—otherwise it wouldn't be "isolated negligence." But what if police decided to embark upon an informal policy of not updating records to reflect expiring warrants of selected criminal suspects? These suspects might be selected on the basis of the crimes they commit, their political beliefs, their race, their religion, or any other criteria police devise.  Whether conducted in good faith or otherwise, under the Supreme Court's reasoning, such a policy—so long as it could be attributed to "isolated negligence"—would probably pass legal muster.

Back in 1965, Judge Henry Friendly, a highly regarded appellate judge, wrote,

"The sole reason for [the] exclusion[ary rule] … is that experience has demonstrated this to be the only effective method for deterring the police from violating the Constitution."

And, I might add to protect us all from any real harm that might be perpetrated by the well meaning, but poorly executed law enforcement efforts of the Barney Fifes of the world.

 

Copyright © 2009 by Mark Nestmann

(An earlier version of this post was published by The Sovereign Society.)

On another note, many clients first get to know us by accessing some of our well-researched courses and reports on important topics that affect you.

Like How to Go Offshore in 2024, for example. It tells the story of John and Kathy, a couple we helped from the heartland of America. You’ll learn how we helped them go offshore and protect their nestegg from ambulance chasers, government fiat and the decline of the US Dollar… and access a whole new world of opportunities not available in the US. Simply click the button below to register for this free program.

About The Author

Free Consultation

Since 1984, we’ve helped 15,000+ customers and clients build their wealth protection plan.

Book in a free no-obligation  consultation and learn how we can help you too.

Get our latest strategies delivered straight to your inbox for free.

Get Our Best Plan B Strategies Right to Your Inbox.

The Nestmann Group does not sell, rent or otherwise share your private details with third parties. Learn more about our privacy policy here.

The Basics of Offshore Freedom

Read these if you’re mostly or very new to the idea of going offshore

What it Really Takes to Get a Second Passport

A second passport is about freedom. But how do you get one? Which one is best? And is it right for you? This article will answer those questions and more…

How to Go Offshore
in 2024

[CASE STUDY] How we helped two close-to-retirement clients protect their nest egg.

Nestmann’s Notes

Our weekly free letter that shows you how to take back control.