Here's the chain of causation. Illegal stop --> discovery of warrant --> arrest --> search. Each step "caused" the next.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey
Except the intervention of the arrest gave independent (and legitimate) basis for the search.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActualFlatticus
And the arrest only came about because of the officer's initiation of an illegal search.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Direct proximate cause was the call for the warrant, not the illegal stop.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActualFlatticus
Without the illegal stop there would have been no direct proximate cause to be obtained.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mtracey
Still never would've made an arrest without them, but it was sufficiently attenuated. Today's case was an easier call.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mtracey
Interesting tangential fact. None of this matters in Indiana, where they simply have no attenuation doctrine. Just isn't there.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActualFlatticus
Huh? It exists everywhere in the United States, given that the Supreme Court has established it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
Indiana's constitution has stronger fourth amendment protections than the US one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Right, I was aware of that. Do you know how many states have their own "attenuation" doctrine?
-
-
Replying to @mtracey
As far as I know no other state departs from the federal model, so 49 of them I assume.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ActualFlatticus
So does the Indiana constitution specifically prohibit or invalidate the "attenuation" doctrine?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.