China Makes Ultimate Punishment Mobile. Does It Play Ice Cream Truck Music?

[poboy]

Makers of the death vans say the vehicles, which are used for lethal-injection executions, are a civilized alternative to the firing squad, the method used in most Chinese executions.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060615075009990034&cid=2194

 

[astromeria]

Hope Cheney doesn't send Alberto Gonzales a link to the article

=======================================
Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you...

 

[astromeria]

And in today's news (LA Times):

IN A DECISION THAT MIGHT HAVE gone the other way if Justice Sandra Day O'Connor hadn't retired, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday needlessly gutted a venerable protection for personal privacy. By a 5-4 vote — with Samuel A. Alito Jr., O'Connor's replacement, in the majority — the justices ruled that Detroit police who entered a suspect's home unlawfully would not suffer the usual penalty for an illegal search: exclusion of the evidence at trial.

The court upheld the conviction of Booker T. Hudson, who was arrested after police, armed with a warrant, found drugs and firearms in his apartment. So what was the problem with the search? As the state of Michigan conceded, the police violated a 4th Amendment rule requiring that they make their presence known to the target of the search before rushing in.

This "knock and announce" rule is not a newfangled creation of softheaded liberal judges. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in this case, conceded that "the common-law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one." But having identified that principle, Scalia went on to trash it by holding that the evidence the police found could be used against Hudson at trial.

 

[Andre1969]

This search warrant stuff really pisses me off sometimes, partly because on two occasions I've had cops come to my door with a search warrant, and both times it was for people who hadn't lived there in ages. Well, I remember a few years before, the cops busted into my neighbor's unit with a warrant. He was renting it. Didn't answer the door, so the cops broke it down. The owner complained to the cops about the damage, and they said take it up with your insurance company. He ended up paying for the damage himself, because if he filed a claim with the insurance company he still would've had to pay the deductible AND his rates would've gone up!

So, that raises a really interesting point. Let's say that both times that the cops came to my house, that either I didn't hear them or nobody was home. So they break in and trash the place. Are they going to reimburse me for the damages they cause? Or if not, do I get to go over to the cops' houses and do the same thing to their homes, to even things out?

 

[OldAgePensioner]

Fulan Gong better watch out.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

the trade-off for the freedom of movement with living aboard a boat is forfeiting privacy rights. police, sheriff, coast guard, navies here & abroad, the occasional pirate, i think even park ranger for that matter can all demand entry, search & seize at will and sans warrant or even reason.

but i don't think they can execute at will, yet. well, except maybe the pirate.

 

[tozz]

China used to charge the family for the firing squad bullets. I suppose now they charge for the fuel and tune-ups?

 

[sailor]

the trade-off for the freedom of movement with living aboard a boat is forfeiting privacy rights. police, sheriff, coast guard, navies here & abroad, the occasional pirate, i think even park ranger for that matter can all demand entry, search & seize at will and sans warrant or even reason.

I'm not an Admiralty lawyer, just a dumb sailor, but not so many people here in US I think.
CG - yes, Customs - yes and I think US Marshals now too (Homeland Security).
All others need a probable cause and/or warrant.
And unless "the officer safety is involved" they need to respect your refusal for them to board your vessel.
Don't have any "new" references handy, just an old (pre-Homeland Secuity Act) link about CG boarding:
http://deepcreekyachtclub.com/WebPage/AdmiraltyLaw.html

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

while cruising the icw, i suggest cooperating when the local sheriff or police department water patrol requests a safety check. and when the mexican navy lobs one over yer bow, ya might wanna pull over.

 

[sailor]

while cruising the icw, i suggest cooperating when the local sheriff or police department water patrol requests a safety check. and when the mexican navy lobs one over yer bow, ya might wanna pull over.

I never advised not to cooperate
Acording to old salt stories it suposedly makes LEOs pissed off.
Knowledgeable ones will call CG if they still want to board you, others might harras you.
I was just pointing out, that most of them can't search your boat "at-will" without any reason (only CG and customs can)

It's a totally different story when cruising abroad, unless you know the law of a country (and local ordinances) very well, if asked to be boarded you'd better show your best manners

 

[Leonidas]

the justices ruled that Detroit police who entered a suspect's home unlawfully would not suffer the usual penalty for an illegal search: exclusion of the evidence at trial.

That one sentence completely mischaracterizes what the Hudson case was all about.

Actually, the rest of the story does the same as well. If you went by what the Times said, you might think the police had no legal authority to enter or search Hudson’s residence and that they had failed to “knock and announce”. The truth is that they were executing a valid search warrant and they did in fact knock and announce their presence and intentions.

It’s a case of English Common Law principles (where knock and announce comes from) running up against the more modern “exclusionary rule”. Police actions that offend the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search and seizure are remedied by exclusion of that evidence. But, a mistake in one area does not give the crook a "get out of jail free" card for everything. For example, if the police execute a valid search warrant and gather evidence, but then later take the defendant's confession without advising him of his Miranda rights, the remedy is to exclude the confession - but there is nothing wrong with the evidence found in the earlier search warrant. There has to be a causal relationship between Constitutional violations and evidence before the exclusionary rule allows for relief.

Like many other Fourth Amendment “rules”, the knock and announce rule has exceptions that have long been recognized. There are circumstances, though rare, when the police shouldn’t knock and announce before entry. There are many more instances when they should knock and announce, but not wait too long before entering. The how long to wait question depends greatly on the known facts and how they should have been reasonably interpreted by the cops making entry.

Before Hudson, there were two questions that the court had not answered: What are the different minimums of time to wait, in all of the possible different scenarios, before the police can enter after they have knocked and announced? And, should the “exclusionary rule” apply in instances in which it has been determined that the police didn’t wait long enough?

Hudson’s case did not answer the first question, and the Supremes sighed in relief and basically said “we’re not going to answer that today, but we’ll accept the Michigan court ruling that the wait was not long enough – just so we can answer the second question.”

And that’s all that the Hudson opinion considered. There is no causal relationship between offending the Constitution by not waiting a reasonable time to enter a place to be searched and the actual legality of the search itself. The amount of delay between knocking and entering may have been wrong and may have offended the Constitution, but that had no causal relationship with the legality of the police officers' presence, entry, search and discovery of five crack rocks in Booker T. Hudson's pants pocket.

From the Hudson ruling: “What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected, however, is one's interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.”

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

No ice cream music...

http://moviethemes.net/music/starwars/empire-theme.mid

 

[bosco]

but i don't think they can execute at will, yet. well, except maybe the pirate.

not yet, but they can send them to Guantanamo forever.