O.J. Simpson & the Fourth Amendment
Topics: Rights
11 Jul 1994
From: ervan
Well, I've heard people complain that O.J. is getting off easy because
he is a sports hero and others complain he is getting treated
unusually harshly because he is black. All I know is that when it
comes to Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches
and seizures, he's being treated like everyone else, i.e. no protection
at all.
The detective said they were at O.J.'s place to inform him of his
ex-wife's death. That is surely a lie. They were there to question
him (which is fine but it speaks to the officer's credibility). The
next comment is that a tiny blood stain on his truck gave them grounds
to think imminent harm may have been occurring inside. That sounds
bogus to me, but even if it is true, it does not therefore generate a
reason to search, it generates only a reason to prevent imminent harm.
The Fourth Amendment says "particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized", in other words
the police cannot make up some excuse and then go fishing. That's
exactly what happened.
The judge was no better. On the clip I saw on MacNeil/Lehrer (where
she rejected the defense motion for suppression of the glove
as evidence), she said "The lack of a warrant did not matter
because they got one later." The mind boggles at the possible
uses of that bit of reasoning. The Chronicle, with their right-wing
tendancies in full display, called the decision a "Common-Sense Ruling"
and quoted the judge as saying the detectives acted with "benevolent
purpose". Whoa, even scarier. All we need to do to ignore the
constitution is find a judge who thinks the police are acting in
good faith?
---Ervan
Home