Column: Sinapi's Spread

02/05/09 - In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court, a court intended to uphold and protect the Constitution and the rights afforded to all citizens therein, ruled in favor of allowing unlawfully obtained evidence to be used against a defendant standing trial.In July 2004, Bennie Dean Herring arrived in a pickup truck at the Coffee County, Ala., Sheriff's Office to check on the status of an impounded vehicle. Upon arriving, Herring was recognized by the county investigator, Mark Anderson, who quickly checked for any outstanding warrants against Herring. A warrant clerk in neighboring Dale County confirmed that there was a warrant for Herring's arrest for failing to appear in court on a felony charge. Acting quickly, Mark Anderson arrested Herring, discovering methamphetamine and an unregistered pistol inside the truck. Soon after, however, the warrant clerk contacted Anderson, informing him that a mistake had been made and the warrant for Herring had been rescinded, thus rendering the search and seizure illegal.

In Herring's subsequent trial, the judge ruled that the prosecution would be allowed to use the evidence, despite the circumstances under which it was found. Herring was convicted and sentenced to 27 months of incarceration.

In January 2009, after a series of appeals, the decision reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled evidence obtained through police negligence or error, is legal for trial. This decision is a direct breach of the Fourth Amendment.

In relation to search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" and of even greater relevance to the specific case on which the Supreme Court's decision was based, "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In Herring's case no such warrant existed, and as such, the evidence found against him was illegally used in trial to obtain a conviction. On the subject, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "When police mistakes that lead to an unlawful search arise from negligence ... rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements', evidence need not be kept from trial." This statement is in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment describes a very basic and fundamental right of an American citizen: the right to privacy. Too often opposition argues that if one has nothing to hide, then one should have nothing to fear. The ignorance in such a statement is resounding.

At what point then, does this government's right to intrude on the private life of its citizens end? It is not a matter of having "something to hide" but rather the implication that police and the judicial system have the right to circumvent the law.

Roberts' interpretation of the Constitution provides a loophole for the police to arrest citizens without just cause, or a legal warrant, convicting those found with contraband and dismissing the others "arrested in error." In an attempt to produce positive results out of failed drug policy, America's war on drugs has become the war on civil rights. Should one so blindly agree to the dismissal of basic civil liberties? Where does one draw the line?