Thanks for Commenting
If they searched his house illegally as the judge says, I don't see that he had any choice but to make the decision that he did. The police who searched his home on an invalid search warrant appear to be the ones to blame. Don't they know the laws about search warrants?
APD knows better than that. Laws are there to protect the citizens, and judges can't make exceptions sometimes and not others or else what would be the point of having any laws.
Its disappointing that police make these mistakes, but this is certainly not the judges fault.
You of all people should be against "activist" judges who take the law into their own hands, Mr. Burgos.
I have wondered for a while; why not just hold police officers accountable for their violation of civil rights; and keep the evidence in play?
The evidence is no less "true" just because it was seized improperly.
off the top of my head ched,
don't you think police officers might fear serving search warrants if they're personally liable? or perhaps fear the possibility of being setup as a fall?
the "evidence is no less true.." is nice, but a slippery slope that i'd like our judicial system to avoid.
we've had enough of that with BushCo.
It seems to me that if a police officer cannot follow what appear to be clear rules; there should be a consequence.
I don't think that there are that many violations to begin with. We probably hear about nearly all of them because they are so well publicized.
And being accountable to the truth still makes sense to me.
I think all of our constitutional rights are valid; but can be carried to extremes that are opposite the intention of the recognition of the right.
Do you suppose that the folks who wrote the constitution imagined letting a murderer go because of a legal argument over the legitimacy of a search warrant.
Someone else wrote; the bill of rights wasn't written as a mutual suicide pact. I think reason has to enter consideration at some point.
Thanks for your attention to my comment.
"Do you suppose that the folks who wrote the constitution imagined letting a murderer go because of a legal argument over the legitimacy of a search warrant."
since ben franklin wrote, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety", i would have to say 'yes' to answer your question.
my opinion is that a standard judicial system based upon rule of law is an essential component to 'essential liberty'.
even if an accused murderer is let free (and it does make me feel sick when it occurs) i don't want to let the government shift the judicial goal posts.
He (Ronald Santiago) is now free...
http://kob.com/article/stories/S...2.shtml?
cat=500
The problem with Judge Murdock was he did not read the warrants, the warrants were conducted at 9:40p.m. and 9:50p.m. the first at Ronalds home and the second at his parents. Only because the search continued past 10:00p.m. it was construed as an illegal search...B.S. Seems that Ronald's attorney found a way around the system, what a crock. Look up the statistics and read the warrants. No illegal search was conducted....Ronald will have his day in court or in hell his choice.
I'm glad Santiago is out i believe he did not coment the murder, the police need to look further into the family. They need to read the whole police report of the homcide and from that they should be able to come up with some suspects.
Commenting by HaloScan
