Over at FourthAmendment.com, John Wesley Hall offers up some pretty good Fourth Amendment/Christmas humor. (I don’t know how large the audience is for Christmas-themed criminal procedure humor, but if you’re in the target audience, click on the link.)
george weiss says:
this is clear evidence of mental illness
December 25, 2009, 7:31 amsanta claus says:
Mr. Hall doth seem quite excitable, methinks.
December 25, 2009, 10:24 amJohn Armstrong says:
I prefer my own version, for the mathematically minded: http://unapologetic.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/yes-virginia-there-is-a-bourbaki/
Not only is it mine, but it adapts far more of the original language to its subject matter.
December 25, 2009, 12:35 pmirksome1 says:
Since when has overt cynicism been mistaken for “good humor?”
December 25, 2009, 1:39 pmAlaska says:
As a long-time criminal defense attorney, I appreciate the humor and the warning in the post. Black humor and cynicism are frequent hallmarks of the criminal defense bar, in part because we see courts, particularly federal courts, frequently limiting the scope and application of the exclusionary rule (See, for example, Hudson and Cabellas, in the last few years).
John’s blog is a great website for those who practice criminal law, on either side of the courtroom. Thanks for the link to this particular post.
December 25, 2009, 2:28 pmAlaska says:
As a long-time criminal defense attorney, I appreciate the humor and the warning in the post. Black humor and cynicism are frequent hallmarks of the criminal defense bar, in part because we see courts, particularly federal courts, frequently limiting the scope and application of the exclusionary rule (See, for example, Hudson and Cabellas, in the last few years).
John’s blog is a great website for those who practice criminal law, on either side of the courtroom. Thanks for the link to this particular post.
December 25, 2009, 2:28 pmVader says:
It’s understandable that police and courts would look unkindly on excluding evidence that shines a bright light on what actually happened in the case in question. There has to be a better way for a court to sanction 4th Amendment violations than shooting itself in the foot.
After all, if damning evidence is excluded because cops misbehaved, and a dangerous criminal goes loose, who suffers? The criminal’s next victim, who is almost certainly not the cop who violated hs 4th Amendment rights. Can anyone really pretend this is just?
December 26, 2009, 11:54 amOrin Kerr says:
Vader,
You say “there has to be a better way.” What is it?
December 26, 2009, 12:03 pmmwb says:
Indeed, what is the better way.
Immigration practitioners are perhaps the most aware of articulable standards, as we’ve seen enforcement, with a straight face, cite to “middle-eastern appearance” as an excuse to conduct a search and seizure, and countless armed home raids based on bad-faith fishing expeditions based on warrants with generic latin names or “warrants” which aren’t really warrants at all.
Those representing non-citizens can perhaps best appreciate the struggle of convincing a judge that yes, there is an exclusionary rule, and yes, it applies to all people in the United States. And yes, it should cover “middle-eastern appearance” and fake warrants.
December 26, 2009, 4:44 pm