Vermont judge rejects U.S. Supreme Court search ruling

[cal04]

Vermont District Court judge has rejected a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the power of police to search a private home, concluding that the state offers greater protections in such cases.

Judge Robert Bent said that under the state Constitution police must knock and announce themselves before conducting a search, even if they have a warrant, or face the prospect that any evidence they find could be thrown out.

The Supreme Court said June 15 that evidence obtained without first knocking could be used at trial, but Bent said that would not apply in Vermont.

"Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of state law," Bent wrote, citing an earlier state case as precedent. "Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process, distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2006/07/11/vermont_judge_rejects_us_supreme_court_search_ruling/?p1=email_to_a_friend

[redqueen]

1. Here's to you, Judge!

:toast:

[Buns_of_Fire]

2. Can he do this?

Not that I disagree, but I always thought that once the Supremes rule on a matter, that's it.

[bdamomma]

4. the judge said it was under the state constitution

I'm glad to see some people abide by their state Constitution.

[Sherman A1]

5. Abiding by the Constitution

seems like a novel idea of late!

[Jim Sagle]

6. My understanding (not that I'm a lawyer) is that he can.

The US Supreme Court merely ruled that nothing in the US constitution requires police to knock before a raid. A state judge ruling on state/local police conduct would still be free to find that the state constitution was more restrictive on police conduct.

[Vidar]

11. Well-reasoned. I hope you're right.

[murielm99]

7. That's what I thought, too.

I have never seen anything like this. I remember all the furor over integration and voting rights in the South. If this was normal, a state judge could have overruled any civil rights decision back then. Instead, they were forced to accept them.

I don't know. * ignores what the Supreme Court tells him, so why not a state judge? A judge seems better qualified to understand the law than * any day.

I don't think I like a judge ignoring the Supreme Court. It is dangerous. Seriously, this country is turning into a lawless mess.

[AirAmFan]

13. I agree with post #6. The Constitution leaves matters not explicitly

covered by the Constitution and its Amendments to the States.

In the case of segregation, Southern laws and practices were in violation of the 14th Amendment, which uses the explicit language "NO STATE SHALL" deprive any citizen of equal protection by the law.

The recent Kangaroo Supreme Court ruling might apply to Federal cases in Vermont, but not to most cases involving Vermont state laws, which include most criminal laws and criminal court procedures, such as rules of evidence.

[sui generis]

8. not a lawyer but

the only way to escalate to the Supreme court is on some procedural finding in which a higher court may overrule or overturn based on applicable law.

If Vermont has an established legal process under state law, the Supreme Court may have an opinion but can't establish law that overrules the process of evidence at the state level. Not sure in a federal case how local Vermont law would apply though. When the local police come not-knocking is it different when the DEA or FBI comes not-knocking?

I'm sure a real legal eagle will ante up here in a bit.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. I thank you all for your input.

I now know enough to know that lawyerin' is most assuredly NOT going to be in my future, immediate or otherwise.

[lindisfarne]

15. Yes he can. Think of eminent domain: the Supreme Court explicitly said

states should pass laws protecting people against taking of property by eminent domain if they wanted to provide more protection than provided by the Constitution.

Since Vermont's laws/Constitution about knocking and entering by the government (police) provides greater protection than the US Constitution, it is permissible.

It wouldn't work the other way around: had the Supreme Court rules that the evidence was not admissible, Vermont couldn't rule that their Constitution makes the evidence admissible, because that would be reducing the protections provided by the US Constitution.

[arcane1]

3. verrrrry interesting...

I wonder if we will see more of this sort of thing in the future...?

:toast: to a brave judge!!!

[AngryAmish]

9. What an awful headline

The headline writer seems almost wholly ignorant of the federal system.

[goforit]

10. Hats off to Vermont!!!......

Seceding coast to coast is mounting!

And with all fascists,being the minority, that are around,
it is certainly about time America stands tall against
Tyrrannical power.

[cali]

14. Holy moly

I'm surprised Bob Bent ruled this way. Good for him.

[lindisfarne]

16. There's nothing at all revolutionary in this decisions; states can always

provide citizens with additional protections beyond that provided by the US Constitution; what states cannot do is *curtail* protections provided by US Constitution. See msg. #15 as well. States passing laws curtailing use of eminent domain is another example of this sort of thing.