Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#3 Wolf. Colorado
40 Plays8 months ago
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Wolf v. Colorado.
Police investigating illegal abortions searched a doctor’s office without a search warrant and took a log of patients. After interviewing his patients, police charged JW and others. The results of the search were used as evidence and JW was convicted. JW appealed his conviction.
The question before the court: do 4th Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures apply to criminal cases in state courts? Or do state courts get to make their own rules?
This is episode 2 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Relitigated Podcast
00:00:01
Speaker
Hi there. I'm Jarrett. Welcome to Relitigated, the show where five friends who are absolutely not lawyers attempt to retry a real Supreme Court case. This is episode three, Wolf v. Colorado. It's also the second part in our three-part series on the development of what's called the exclusionary rule.
00:00:20
Speaker
If you missed the first part of the series and prefer to get caught up, feel free to listen to the previous episode before this one if you like. A quick note before we get started, as always, we try our best to represent the facts and decisions in the case as accurately as possible. We're not lawyers and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice.
Meet the Co-hosts and Justices
00:00:39
Speaker
With that out of the way, let's start the show.
00:00:44
Speaker
Very diligent, very fast. He was amazing. Wow. Shout out to him. I hope he's doing well, wherever he is. So any doordash users out there, keep a lookout for this young man. He's a go-getter. Yeah. What a guy. Hey, hi there. Hi. Hello. Hello. Welcome to the Re-litigated podcast, y'all. I'm your host, Jarrett. I'm joined by my co-host, Nikki. Hello. We also have with us three friends.
00:01:13
Speaker
who will be role-playing as our justices. First, we have Associate Justice Adam. Hello, Adam. I'm just here for the powdered wig. So much powder. Sounds good, right? Just everywhere. It's everywhere. It really gets in all the crevices. We have Associate Justice Chris. Hello. And lastly, we have our Chief Justice, Sarah. Good day to all. If you're new to the show, here's how this works.
00:01:41
Speaker
Nikki and I have selected a real Supreme court case and our justices do not know what case we have selected. Although to be fair, none of us are lawyers. And I'm pretty sure that if we had told you in advance what the case was, you wouldn't know what it was anyway. So there's that. That's true. We're going to deep cut this week. All right. Yeah. Zero legal expertise from anybody here. but That really helps with the impartiality of it all. Yes. Yes. Yeah.
Case Background: Wolf v. Colorado
00:02:08
Speaker
All right, so Nikki's going to introduce the case to us, walk us through the facts and the events so that we can all get familiar with the details. And the justices can are free to ask factual questions during this time. And we're going to answer those as best as we can. We don't have all of the answers. Turns out we weren't there. ah But we'll do the best that we can.
00:02:30
Speaker
Next we'll move into oral arguments where Nikki will role play as the petitioner and I will role play as the respondent. We each get seven minutes to make our case during which the justices are free to interrupt us and ask any probing questions that you like during that time period. When the arguments are over, the justices will deliberate and deliver their own opinions.
00:02:50
Speaker
The final rulings do not need to be unanimous. The majority opinion wins. And even if two or more justices agree in principle, you can disagree as to why. Once we've had our fun with our mock hearing, Nikki and I will reveal what the Supreme Court actually decided and we'll talk about how we feel about the actual results and why this case matters. Sound good to everyone? Never heard never heard anything better.
00:03:16
Speaker
Awesome. Cool. I'll turn it over to Nikki, who will introduce this episode's case. ah We are discussing the Sarah court canon. So in our previous episode, the Sarah court. Oh my God. Yeah. Yeah. Let's fucking go. Yeah. The the the court, it's it's always named after like the head justice. So this is the Sarah court. um And so in our prior episode, Weeks versus United States, the Sarah Court established the exclusionary rule, meaning that the Fourth Amendment requires that evidence obtained from illegal searches and seizures are not allowed to be used as evidence in federal criminal cases. um And that's cool because it also goes along with the real life SCOTUS precedents.
00:04:05
Speaker
um As a side note, ah the Sarah Court canon also established the porque no los dos doctrine, which is that evidence should be excluded from trial and also the officer acting illegally should face punishment. Yeah. so Get everybody. Yeah. Guys, we're establishing our own body of jurisprudence. Can I say just how much I love that word? Because it contains two of my favorite words, jurist, which is what we are, and prudence, which is what we are striving to be. And yet failing. Wow. I was wondering how long it was going to take for somebody to say jurisprudence correctly. Not long. Sorry. Continue.
00:04:46
Speaker
So ah yeah, so that's the, yeah we're calling this canon because you know that's that's a fun internet
Legal Precedents and Due Process
00:04:52
Speaker
word to use. um Okay. I get it. So now we come to the case of Wolf v. Colorado. And ah this is information obtained ah courtesy of a write-up from Professor Joel Samaha at the University of Minnesota. But in any case, the facts are as follows.
00:05:14
Speaker
The chief investigator with the Denver County District Attorney's Office got an anonymous phone call stating that a woman in a local hotel was ill from an illegal abortion. Investigators from the office went to the hotel, located the woman, and sent her to the hospital.
00:05:34
Speaker
When this woman was questioned by the investigators, she revealed that she had indeed had an abortion. She also identified the two doctors involved, one who performed the procedure and the other who had examined her before and after. The doctors were arrested on a charge of conspiracy to perform a criminal abortion.
00:05:57
Speaker
One of the doctors, the the one who had examined her, was J.W. ah He was a physician who specialized in obstetrics and women's healthcare. When he was arrested, officials from the DA's office searched his office, and during the search, they seized two books. These books contained patient names and the dates that he had seen them. There was no warrant for his arrest or for the search.
00:06:24
Speaker
The chief investigator talked to the press telling them that the investigation was proceeding and that it was following leads from records seized in the raids. His female patients were contacted and questioned and six reported that JW had helped them get abortions. ah They identified two other persons involved and those were CF and BF. And those two persons were also arrested and charged with conspiracy to perform illegal abortions.
00:06:55
Speaker
JW, the other doctor involved, AM, CF, and BF had trials by juries. The books, the daybooks, and the patient testimony were the evidence against them. JW's attorney objected strongly to the introduction of the evidence. He argued that the officials did not have the right to search the office without a warrant, ah access information that is privileged under the law, and then contact patients.
00:07:23
Speaker
He further asserted that the seizure violated the Constitution. The court overruled the objection and allowed the books and the patient's testimony to be admitted as evidence.
00:07:35
Speaker
JW was convicted at both of his trials. For his first conviction, he was sentenced to between one year and 18 months in prison. And for his second, he was sentenced 15 months to five years. The other co-defendants were also convicted and sentenced to prison.
00:07:56
Speaker
J.W. appealed his convictions to the Colorado Supreme Court with his attorney again arguing that the search had been illegal and the evidence it yielded should have been excluded at trial.
00:08:08
Speaker
The Colorado Supreme Court had previously ruled that evidence from searches and seizures in violation of the Colorado Constitution was still admissible in state courts. What needs to be considered is whether it is, quote, relevant, material and competent, not whether it was obtained illegally.
00:08:28
Speaker
Therefore, the Colorado Supreme Court held that even if the search of JW's office had been illegal, its evidence was still admissible under Colorado law. ah And they noted that the law should not be overturned just so JW could escape the consequences of his actions. And so with that logic, ah the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the convictions. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
00:08:56
Speaker
And so now the question before the Sarah court is, does the 14th amendment requirement of due process apply to state criminal trials? Wow. I have a lot of other questions. Colorado? That's not that one. That was not a question. That was just, yeah, I can see how you thought that was. Anyway, continue please, Chief Justice. No, that's it. I just, uh,
00:09:27
Speaker
wow yeah yeah let's see what happens I believe it was Tom Hardy in Mad Max who said, that's bait. This seems suspiciously cut and dry. Yeah. Yeah.
00:09:41
Speaker
um There's got to be some extenuating circumstances. I'm not smart enough to figure out right here.
Debate on Warrantless Searches
00:09:48
Speaker
Oh, yeah. Our lack of of legal expertise is going to come bite us in the ass. Okay, guys, I got to do pretty hard on this one. I'm just going to put this out on the table. Colorado is part of the United States, right? Yeah, pretty true. Still? Yeah, to my knowledge. oh well Let me check. It's one of the 50. Checking. Oh, don't look at Wikipedia. It's woke. Yup. Yup. Still part of the US. Yeah. Shit.
00:10:12
Speaker
Um, they got mountains though. So sometimes, you know, okay. Okay. People are high. Yeah. They're, they're, they're higher than the rest of us physically and down on us spiritually. yeah really They have the the true moral high ground. Are there any, um, any factual questions that you have yeah about the, about the facts leading us to this point? Why didn't the cops bother with a warrant? It's right. So the doctors were arrested.
00:10:43
Speaker
So they got the anonymous tip, right? And the doctors were arrested, but why, why didn't they get the warrant? Like they just like, Oh yeah, you guys did a bad thing. And then just arrested them. but Yeah, everything about this just seems so hasty. Right. And they searched the office while they were arrested.
00:11:08
Speaker
I mean, I'm thinking like HIPAA violations left and right too. Also true. I'm going to guess that wasn't a thing. Yeah. I mean, this maybe clues us into when this happened. Like, are we able to just walk into doctor's offices these days and get a list of all their patients and call them up? I was just saying a convenient, single handwritten book. Hi, sir. Did this doctor give you a colonoscopy last Thursday? We'd like to ask you some questions about that. It's all in there. It's all in my diary.
00:11:40
Speaker
and you get the occasional rogue doctor with an adetic memory who never writes anything down. Cops will never get them. but Even before HIPAA, yeah right there was patience.
00:11:52
Speaker
doctor confidentiality of some kind. I don't know what it was. I'm just assuming maybe, maybe, maybe that's not true. I don't know. Uh, but even before, it's a big assumption. Uh, but even, you know, HIPAA really just protects your data. It's, you know, you are the owner of your data and you decide who gets to see it or not. Um, and yeah, I don't, I don't know. It's, uh,
00:12:20
Speaker
This is like, you know, confession to it with a priest like roughing a guy up a little bit. Oh, that that kind of confession. I think, you know, like at the police station. OK, I have a question.
00:12:32
Speaker
um but Do I have a why? Why? Why are the police so zealous about prosecuting an abortion? Oh, well, I mean, like so. OK, sorry. Let me back up a step.
00:12:50
Speaker
they get what knows irrelevan It's irrelevant to the constitutional question, but I guess what I would say is it was against the law to perform one. It was performed under circumstances where um it just yeah so there was something about it that was illegal and and it was a violation of state law, allegedly. Right. Forgive forgive me. i'm where I'm not clear from my reading or my research that abortion was necessarily illegal in Colorado. So I misspoke. ah More correct to say, but the cases all seem to say it was an illegal abortion.
00:13:29
Speaker
But what made it illegal, I actually am unclear of, was it just outright outlawed or was it because it wasn't done in like a secure medical facility? I don't actually know. Yeah, it was done in a hotel. Right. I mean, yeah. I mean, that certainly seems not quite on the up and up. I gotta be honest. I understand now why being a judge is so hard.
00:13:54
Speaker
This whole impartiality thing is really difficult. How can you just ignore extenuating circumstances? It's not all powdered wigs all the time, Adam. It's not all powdered wigs and fancy Mai Tai lunches. I assume that's what they do. Mai Tai lunches. Martini, excuse me. Today I learned a new stereotype of judges I'd never known about.
00:14:17
Speaker
I was like, do judges drink my ties? I think we just learned, we learned to think about Adam. yeah My ties and martinis, they're basically the same thing. Honestly, one's very pretty.
00:14:29
Speaker
So I'm basing everything I know from Mad Men, which was a documentary, I presume. Oh yeah. time Nonfiction. So, okay. it So the cops, the cops followed a tip, but my whole point about this, why the cops are so zealous is like, that had to be some tip that had to be like,
00:14:47
Speaker
If you go to this exact place at this exact time and find this exact suspicious leather bound book on this doctor's desk, you're going to find crimes. Well, the the tip was there is a woman who is ill ah at this hotel. Interesting. So yes they went to the hotel. Yes. Who was ill and were like, why are you ill? And she was like, I had an illegal abortion. Okay. Okay. I followed that. I followed that trail of evidence very poorly. but Yeah. So she ended up in the hospital. Yeah. And then once she started like dropping names, then they then that's when they, you know,
00:15:17
Speaker
they went after the doctor. yeah see That feels like enough evidence all in one place to obtain a warrant. So i'm I'm led back to this question of like, what about this made the police feel like they had to circumvent due process? Quota. I guess there's really no objective answer to that that the court can provide, but I'm just amusing. So we are trying to figure out ah if the rules of excluding evidence obtained without a warrant because all of this, once again, see, I'm seeing a common theme here, people not using warrants for things. right I guess nothing matters. It keeps happening. ah For federal courts, does that also apply to the Colorado State Court? State charges, yes. If the state doesn't really have a law that determines that um because of the 14th Amendment's due process clause.
00:16:15
Speaker
so Yeah. Yeah. That's it. We we can argue about it if you if if you like. I'd love to fight about it. We've prepared some statements, in fact. um Yeah, I feel like we've we've collectively stumbled in a confused circle for quite enough time, which is a court protocol. Part of the course.
00:16:38
Speaker
if you would with your arguments. Nikki, I'm going to put seven minutes on the clock for you and you'll you'll be going first as our petitioner. Yes. And you can start now. Okay.
00:16:53
Speaker
ah so ah First, you know i let's discuss the Fourth Amendment, which specifically states that people have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and shall not be violated unless without a warrant unless with a warrant, basically.
00:17:17
Speaker
so and Under the Weeks case, this court has held that in federal prosecutions, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of evidence obtained legally and, as established in Weeks, protection against arbitrary intrusion by the police is the core of the Fourth Amendment and is basic to a free society.
00:17:41
Speaker
It should make no difference regarding whether the government is state or federal, all are subject to the Constitution, and this protection is necessary for a free society. I also want to call attention to the Due Process Clause, detailed in the 14th Amendment.
00:17:58
Speaker
which states, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
00:18:17
Speaker
The text of this amendment tells us that due process is necessary and applicable to state criminal cases in addition to federal cases. If a state condones police intrusion, that would run counter to principles fundamental to the founding of this nation. It also communicates that, but for the uniform of the official, a citizen may or may not have basic rights.
00:18:44
Speaker
It is especially important to hold state and local officials to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment because these are the officials that have the most impact on most people's lives. When citizens are in need of assistance or police intervention, they're going to turn to local authorities rather than try to locate a federal officer who may or may not even have jurisdiction.
00:19:07
Speaker
There are way more city, county, and state police officers and investigators than there are federal officers. As a result, the ordinary citizen is much more likely to encounter local officials in their daily lives than they are federal officers seeking to investigate and prosecute larger scale federal crimes.
00:19:27
Speaker
Local authorities are the face of government action for most people. So if this due process protection is not granted to individuals facing prosecution in state courts, there might as well be no Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment as far as most citizens are concerned.
00:19:45
Speaker
In JW's case, ah the evidence was obtained under circumstances that are clearly illegal and untenable in federal courts. His rights have been violated, and because he had no security in his papers and effects from an unlawful search, he was essentially forced to be a witness against himself, which is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, the evidence against him should have been excluded and the court should overturn his conviction.
00:20:10
Speaker
The Bill of Rights was written with the expectation of and the intention of limiting government intrusion, overreach, and misuse of its powers against individuals. We therefore can't just expect the district attorney or police to monitor themselves. Failing to exclude illegally obtained evidence does nothing to prevent the authorities from engaging in illegal practices and violating individuals' rights just to make a case.
00:20:38
Speaker
So it's not enough to just leave it to the violated to like mount legal action or to sue or to go and complain to the police. I'm going to point out that this case has been pending for over four years and JW has essentially served out one sentence and is still in jail or or finishing his jail sentence for the other.
00:21:00
Speaker
Even if he is back home, he won't get the time and the loss of liberty back, even with money. So the best redress is prevention of an unjust prosecution by the explicit protection of rights.
00:21:15
Speaker
The best prevention is excluding the evidence with the formal application of the exclusionary rule to state proceedings so that that will deter police from acting illegally. Authorities can establish rules for searches within the scope of the Constitution and then train police officers to follow them.
00:21:35
Speaker
ah But that is really what I would like to make clear to the court. ah This is not just an issue for federal courts. Given just the impact, the number on um um local citizenry, this should also apply to state court. Thank you very much, and I will take questions.
00:21:57
Speaker
um Yeah, I don't have a question at this time. However, I do think that we ah should consider the Porque No Los Dos clause in this one too. And ah while also freeing JW and you know, throwing out all evidence held against him. We also punish the Colorado ah state court and everybody that works there. We do balance how fair we are without bloodthirsty we are. That's true. We do. In this court. So I just want to throw that option out there. Also not a question. I'm thinking thinking that that might be plausible action here. I'm going to put that, I'm going to put a pin in that decision ah for now. i' but I do have a question.
00:22:43
Speaker
ah Let me ask this an idiot for you ah to answer for an idiot, if you will. Are you essentially saying that the prosecution is arguing in this case that your rights don't apply to you unless they've been violated by an FBI agent or other federal agent?
00:23:07
Speaker
In other words, the local police, the state police, any other you know interstitial law enforcement body between federal police, that none of them are obligated to respect your constitutional rights in any way.
00:23:27
Speaker
That is my position. Without without ah specific exclusion as established in the week's decision, ah that is what they, that that's gonna be the taking from it.
00:23:42
Speaker
Interesting. No further questions on my end, Nikki. Thank you very much. Yeah, no questions for me either.
00:23:54
Speaker
The prosecution yet again has what the court likes to refer to as a steep climb. yeah Good luck, Jared. I'm the respondent. There's no prosecution in an appeal. But he is representing the the the prosecutor. I am not sure how much more clear I can make that I am making this up as I go and I don't know the rules.
00:24:17
Speaker
the powdered wigs are doing all the work here. The powdered wig has gone to my head physically, metaphorically. It's on my head right now. It's making me mad with power. Like nothing nothing brings me more joy in this world than playing devil's advocate. So um ah you are very good at it. I am very, very excited to be once again, this episode's heel. Are you calling the government the devil? Because I think that's what you just insinuated.
00:24:46
Speaker
It's a phrase in common parlance. I concur, though. The court will make it known that they will not take my words literally, but figuratively. yes If I could please get seven minutes on the clock to not be listened to during, that would be great. I'm gonna listen to you real hard so I can rip you apart. All right, hang on. Wait, impartiality, impartiality.
00:25:12
Speaker
Okay. I do love the, I don't have a question, but I am gonna tell you my opinion right now. Ooh, judicial slam. Oh wait, this guy has to go next? All right, forget I said that for now. Jurisprudence.
00:25:27
Speaker
ah che chi chi chi chi and Chief Justice! you I think the way they do it on the actual court is they just ask a very leading question that shows. It's like, so you're totally correct, right? Man, the real real power move is to take a bribe and then never say anything.
00:25:47
Speaker
Oh, We should get into that for the next episode. Jesus. Pay us. First, first. um This episode is not sponsored by anybody, but Adam is sponsored by an aggressive hatred of late stage capitalism.
00:26:06
Speaker
All right. I'm ready to do this. All right. And your clock starts now.
State vs. Federal Jurisdiction: Who Decides?
00:26:14
Speaker
All right. Here we go. ah Miss Chief Justice, and may it please the court, while I appreciate the opportunity to come and be here today to respond to this absurd petition, I'm a little shocked at our choice of venue. You see, my understanding is that this year court is the Supreme Court of the United States, which makes this a federal court, which is fine, but the federal government wasn't involved in this case, like at all.
00:26:43
Speaker
The officers were all local police officers in the state of Colorado. The defendants were tried in a Colorado state court for breaking a Colorado state law. And the last time I checked, the state of Colorado Supreme Court has on multiple occasions ruled that in the state of Colorado, how evidence is obtained is immaterial to whether or not it can be used in court.
00:27:07
Speaker
The most recent time they ruled this way was in this exact case before it came to this court. So you can see my confusion as to why we're even here. But it gets even more confusing because this court itself has sided with the states many times that they get to choose the rules for how their courts operate as written into law by representatives of the people of those states. Here's just a taste of your own jurisprudence. Hurtado v. California, this very court ruled that it was fine that California didn't require a grand jury indictment to try a defendant, since that's just what California law said.
00:27:55
Speaker
twining v states This very court ruled that the first eight amendments only tie the hands of the federal government, and the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause does not, repeat, does not extend the protections of those eight amendments to tie the hands of state governments.
00:28:14
Speaker
Calco v. Connecticut. This court ruled, again, that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause does not, again, does not guarantee the protections of the first eight amendments for citizens from state governments. It only applies to the federal government. Are you noticing a trend here? Are we allowed to interrupt? Guys, can we say all that?
00:28:36
Speaker
yeah um Hi. I don't remember saying that. Are you trying to say that the state the state of Colorado? I don't know. Something about the state versus federal government part of this seems a little bit familiar to me. It's not just about defending slavery anymore. It's also about the bridging the rights of individuals. Yeah. So, Jared, are you proposing that like the state of Colorado, you know the court could say that we're going to
00:29:07
Speaker
ah I don't know, execute the worst juror, you know, for fun as part of our court process. But like, you know, even the federal court or the federal law says, hey, like you can't do that, the Colorado state court's going to be like, oh, be up but we you know we want to do that. So we're going to do that. Okay. Like summarily execute a juror.
00:29:32
Speaker
No, that was and that would violate other things that this court has upheld. Or, you know, a petitioner for the state. We're not being specific. we're We're just talking about the the operational, ah you know, rules that judges are governed by and how they make decisions are a matter for the state. And it's not me saying that, it's all of your previous colleagues in all of these previous cases. Yeah, I think we did say that, guys.
00:30:18
Speaker
the federal government, the bedrock principles of how it behaves and what protection citizens have from it is the U.S. Constitution. When the federal government gets involved, the U.S. Constitution applies. We saw that recently when we did when this court, I'll argue correctly, ah stated in the Weeks v. United States decision that At the federal level, this court doesn't like the idea of evidence being entered that was illegally obtained. No, we don't. Because these are Supreme Courts, ah sorry, are not okay with it. Yeah, we don't like it. and that's and yeah And that makes sense because these are federal judges ruling on federal procedure in federal courts. That's totally cool.
00:31:06
Speaker
to to to do lost place I kind of, I kind of understand. I understand that. Yeah. Go ahead. Justice. Well, I was just saying, I understand, you know, should we as a Supreme court rule over the state court, um, that basically says, Hey, uh, you know, your decision was wrong. Uh, even though there were no federal ah agents involved at all. That's what I'm saying. Does the Supreme Court hold that power over the state courts, even if nobody involved in the state um was a federal agent? And multiple times this court, that's the precedent that's been built up over years.
00:31:54
Speaker
um you know Even in that week's case, the court did not go so far as to violate the sovereignty of the states and demand that they apply extra rules that their own citizens didn't vote for legislators to write into law. Hell, even before the week's decision in the Adams v. New York case that was mentioned in the arguments by a dapper respondent,
00:32:20
Speaker
ah hum officers wow Officers seized more property than they had a warrant for and then they used that extra property as evidence. And this court said that it was up to New York, whether or not that was okay. And New York was like, it's okay. So the court was like, that it's okay. I believe that there might be a desire here to let a guilty man go free on the assumption that this might provide a deterrence to police officers, but such a policy decision is the work of legislatures, not courts. The states can decide from themselves how they want to implement a system of deterrence and punishment for the officers who fail to follow their rules.
00:32:59
Speaker
They also get to decide what those rules are and how they're going to be followed in the first place. Otherwise, you know, we're going to have to get into the weeds of every state's law. It just doesn't make sense for the federal government to do that. The precedent is clear. The 14th Amendment does not bind the states to the first eight amendments of the Constitution. Only the federal government is bound by the first eight amendments and the 14th Amendment in its conduct. As such, it's actually the 10th Amendment, which is the most important one at play.
00:33:28
Speaker
ah And it's a simple, elegant sentence. Quote, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. yeah You are at time.
00:33:43
Speaker
da
00:33:46
Speaker
i'll put I'll put the last two paragraphs of my thing up on the website. Yeah, please, please. We need captions, cliff notes. Yes. Petitioner, respondent, whatever I'm supposed to call you. I have a Patrick Wigg, so it really doesn't matter. I do want to ask, torture thought experiment, the answer to which will absolutely not determine my judgment in this case. Are you saying that unless a state constitution explicitly provides the right to free speech, that the state authorities, the state police, local police, can detain and execute someone for exercising the wrong religion? That's what I'm saying!
00:34:25
Speaker
king as long as no feds were involved. as as Marry an FBI agent or IRS police ah officer who was involved in this illegal detention and burning at the stake. And therefore, is it was on the up and up. Should a state pass a law, the Supreme Court, if it is challenged, it can be challenged to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can decide on a case-by-case basis if it believes that
00:34:57
Speaker
that law is ah unconstitutional. Okay, so if the We Can Burn Witches law has not made it onto the Supreme Court's docket in time, local cops are free to have their barbecue.
00:35:12
Speaker
That's actually just kind of how the law works to my understanding, Your Honor. Who gave me this wig? Power is always capable of being used. It is only in the challenging of it that it becomes restrained.
00:35:27
Speaker
Wait, are you telling me that it's all an illusion of safety? We could be barbecuing witches right now. We could be barbecuing witches right now. And as long as Johnny Law takes a minute to figure out what's going on, we're on the clear. Whoa. Damn. Guys, that's a lot of power for me to have. Okay, I have another question. What is the boundary between state and federal property in this case. Is it strictly a matter of who is enforcing the law? Is that it? It doesn't matter where it happens. It's strictly a matter of who it is who's enforcing the law. What's that? Also, who's law? Yeah, okay, that makes sense. Is Colorado law being managed by Colorado officials in the state of Colorado? And what the petitioner is asking is for this court to become a Colorado
00:36:25
Speaker
state court momentarily.
00:36:29
Speaker
Last I checked, they they have their own government. Got to be honest. Didn't expect your argument to be so compelling. Thank you. Thank you, Justices. I rest from lack of time, not lack of things to say. Yeah, you're way over. I think we're probably ready to discuss or deliberate or jurisprude. I don't know. Yeah, jurisprude. That's absolutely. Jurisprude. Just the juris part. Nikki it nii and I return to being clerked. Wait, you can do that? You should have a sound de effect there where you guys magically return back into clerk form. Yeah, like a long drum from a sting. Like, whee. Yeah, like like the sound of like a magic wand or something. The court digresses.
00:37:17
Speaker
Yeah. Okay, guys, how are we feeling, Chris?
00:37:26
Speaker
i am i am on the I am on the fence about, you know, the interpretation and also, um you know, should the Supreme Court tell the state what to do? ah Probably not. You know, probably not. Also probably maybe sometimes yes. But sometimes, ah you know, in in the case of You know really have to look at the what's being argued, or what's what's actually the question. right and And it's more about um the evidence, right excluding evidence, um you know and and as opposed to specifics about the large question hand, like the illegal abortions and things like that. It's more focusing in on the evidence and the freedom of this man um who
00:38:10
Speaker
uh, has been, you know, in prison or jail for, was it 15 months by the time or or or did you say four years? What was the, how long has this been going? Like,
00:38:23
Speaker
Uh, let me just double check to make sure I'm, that feels like some violation of some due process, but it's unclear. Yeah. Yeah. But is it the job of the Supreme court to rule that that is bad versus the state court to say, Oh yeah, we messed up. So wait what how much time are you looking for? Um,
00:38:47
Speaker
Oh, is it the time that JW has been in jail by the time the question came before the court? So, um, I thought I, I thought you mentioned an argument.
00:39:03
Speaker
Yeah. So he was tried. Okay. So I have the year that he was tried and it was four years after that, that the case was argued in front of the Supreme court.
00:39:14
Speaker
So this has been going on for quite a long time. And so the state courts, um after four years of ah hearing ah various cases are the here in the case, um and they still ah have found them guilty, then is it the Supreme Court's place to come in and rule on the state's authority?
00:39:38
Speaker
um ah Man, you're really nailing this whole impartiality thing. I'm very impressed. Very good. Yeah, right down the middle, dude. Right down the middle. Honestly. That is some King Solomon biz. Chris is our swing justice. He's very good. He's the only one who knows how to do his job. He's my target in every episode. Yeah. Hit your swing boater, as it were. Yeah. Just right in that line the whole time. Yeah, I'm usually trying to talk to Sarah.
00:40:06
Speaker
Yeah, I hear you, Nikki, loud and clear. Speaking right right to my soul. we've got chief joe We've got Chief Justice Sarah, we've got Swing Justice Chris, we've got Wild Card. and I don't respect the law at all. I don't know who put me here. I mean, okay, so it just kind of feels like to me, like I'm just hung up on the idea, like, okay, yes, obviously, we don't want the federal Actually, no, I'm going to scrap what I was about to say. Like there's a reason why we have a constitution and why we have amendments. You know what I mean? Like the States aren't just allowed to do willy nilly, whatever they please. And you know, I guess they can try to get away from it. You didn't read the fine print in Colorado cops can just break in your house anytime steal your shit. Yeah. I I don't know. I feel like the fact, I don't know. I feel like they, okay.
00:41:02
Speaker
Let me back up here. I'm gonna go back again to the fact that all this evidence was taken without a warrant. We just talked about this, okay? That's like a big no-no. It's a big problem. Yeah, it's a big problem. And again, per porque no los dos, I do think that everybody should be punished for that. um But I feel like because all the evidence was taken without a warrant, ah like even though it happened under the jurisdiction of the Colorado state courts or whatever, like
00:41:33
Speaker
can Is Colorado allowed to just be like, oh, yeah, no, no one needs warrants for anything anymore. This evidence is good to go and then just like throw people in jail? No, that feels very not due processy, in my opinion. right let me Let me choose a less extreme example. right like If Colorado decided they could just like quarter their national guardsmen in your house, yeah right like who er everyone thinks about the Third Amendment.
00:41:58
Speaker
But that would upset people. But according to this doctrine, like they could kind of do that unless I'm missing something substantially, or which is extremely possible. I don't know. I mean, my education on the Constitution is very, it just extends to what I studied in high school and a little bit in college. so I'm shocked that my brain encyclopedia recalled the Third Amendment here. and That's great. im doing That was impressive. i wouldn't have i would That would have been extremely recall for me. In times of peace? peace We haven't had to worry about the whole quartering soldier thing in a minute. This speaks to our quality of life. Yeah. Good for us, guys. Nice. well All right. You know what? Even-handed justice, Chris.
00:42:41
Speaker
if you've been handed. Are you not Justice Chris that even handed? He's our swing our swing justice, swing justice, Chris. it More of a pen pendulum justice. um yeah i don't Yeah, I do. I feel, um yes, the 14th Amendment and and the question of this, i that's where that's the other piece that I'm that i'm feeling is that JW has been in jail for four years.
00:43:08
Speaker
And that's harsh. This is cruel and unusual. yeah Right. Well, it's a deprivation, right? Of, of his or hers, JW, um, uh, the doctor's life. Um, so I can see it, right? I can see the issue, um, and the lack of due process that no evidence used against him in court. Um, yeah, I can see that. Um, but yeah, the,
00:43:34
Speaker
The fact that the Supreme Court is here telling the state courts, like hey, why aren't you looking at the Constitution? And I think that's the that's the issue that I have, is the states should be using the Constitution as when they are making their rulings as, hey, I'm looking at this person who ah committed these crimes which for which we have have convicted this person. and ah gathered evidence illegally. So, not great. um But very sus. That's a really interesting question, actually, that is probably best saved for a separate episode. But in the absence of specific legislation in a state, you you know, like around whatever topic, and, you know, in 2024, in the future, like, probably likely to happen at some point in the future, right, where there's like something important and pivotal that, like, the state law just hasn't had a chance to catch up and talk about and think about.
00:44:27
Speaker
That's actually- Does not the court have an obligation to use some sort of established hierarchical framework for guiding what's right? And like, is that not the constitution? Is that not like- Right? I thought that's why we had a constitution. Right? That's kind of why it's there. That's why it's there. It's the cascading style sheet of of legislative guidance. If we let the state courts just get away with murder, even though the constitution says, hey, don't get away with murder in your courts, then What's the point of having the Constitution?
Constitutional Protections in State Courts
00:44:57
Speaker
Also, should not Colorado have like a little tiny Constitution that's kind of like the big one? I feel like that's important. They should really codify the whole freedom of the speech thing.
00:45:07
Speaker
Well, no, if they had that, then that would go against the 40th Amendment, technically, because they're not supposed to make her enforcing the laws, which abridges her privileges, or maybe this isn't something that happens against the... I clearly don't understand how anything works. Yeah, okay. Thank you, King Solomon. That was really good. That was a level of expertise that has... That I do not have. Yeah, that has rarely been seen on this show quite yet. Well, I... I am still torn, but I feel a little bit stronger about the fact that the Supreme Court should not tell the freaking states what to do. I do feel strongly about that, and the state should be given some level of autonomy when it comes to issues within the state.
00:45:54
Speaker
um but when it comes to kind of the bigger things where, you know, we have the constitution that is technically national federal level. Hey, that we should be protecting citizens. Um, but whose job is that? Right? Is it the Supreme court's job? Um, I don't know. Uh, if I know Jared and Nikki and I've known them for a minute, they're trying to teach us a lesson. I hate that.
00:46:22
Speaker
And I think that the lesson is sometimes we just have to like completely dispel our personal feelings about what's right and wrong and purely examine the legality of the situation, which again, to be clear, I'm finding very troubling and difficult. yeah that's what we're That's what we're here to do. That's why they gave us the wigs. And I think you're right. Yeah.
00:46:49
Speaker
yeah Well, my wig is telling me that you're both wrong, and Jared's wrong. ah Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with Nikki. Yeah, I think I'm gonna go with Nikki on this one. I just can't seem to shape the feeling that like the Constitution is there for a reason and again hey guys i'm not a lawyer ah but i feel like the way that this evidence was obtained to. ah Throw jw in jail for this amount of time like it just feels icky again no warrant um massive hip violations not that that has anything to do with this but it's part of it in my brain.
00:47:26
Speaker
Uh, and I just, yeah, well, I just feel like the 14th amendment is there for a reason. And there's a due process that the States should follow when it comes to trying and convicting people, because that's a big deal and can result in the loss of their liberty and, or their literal life. Um, so yeah, I'm gonna have to go, I'm gonna have to go with Nikki on this one. I am just not convinced of the other argument. I get that the States should have their ability to do as they please as well, but when it comes to throwing people in jail willy-nilly, the Constitution is is there for a reason. So that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Wow.
00:48:13
Speaker
Love it. I propose a new 28th amendment. Hippa. Just Hippa. Just Hippa in general. Yeah, just Hippa. I'm just shorthand. I'm just lazy today. I propose a new 30th amendment.
00:48:26
Speaker
Uh, that the bill of rights be enforced at the state level, but in a descending order of importance from the first amendment backwards. So by the time you get into the twenties amendments, like nobody cares anymore, but I feel like the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, those are kind of Supreme. Those are like, like the really important ones. The whole soldier's court in your house will ignore that one. The fourth amendment, very important. I kind of feel like the state should have to respect that no matter what. So.
00:48:55
Speaker
We'll have to let this one slide. I'm going to be a wild card, and I'm going to go with the whole states rights thing on this one, unfortunately, against my better judgment. But we can make new amendments, and I propose we do so. We've got to patch this whole, people. Wait, can we? Can we? Do we have that power? Like us? Like us? Like us? The way it might get. It's good to you. Yeah. so The rules are in the Constitution.
00:49:22
Speaker
Yes, we should probably read that. You should probably read that at some point. It's i think it's it's not a long read. That's OK. I knew the Third Amendment. I just trail off after like the 14th or so.
00:49:35
Speaker
Yeah. um Okay. are we all Are we all settled in our decisions, my fellow court members? I don't think we heard from the ah swing justice. Oh, yes, Chris. In terms of my final ruling, right, and I want to go back to the original question.
00:49:53
Speaker
right And then the question before us is that if our federal rules apply to the state, if the state doesn't have any law or and no federal agent was involved in the criminal proceedings,
00:50:08
Speaker
um i i have to yeah I think it's up to the state to decide. um I think it's there <unk> it would sin within their power. I don't think the Supreme Court should be making laws um you know based on you know evidence and and things like that. um yeah i just I think the Supreme Court should not be in the business of telling the state what to do unless you know there you know there actually was something that um Yeah, and that's why that's why laws that we make are so important, right? And this is kind of echoing that. It's the laws that are made to ah protect individuals in these such certain situations at the federal level are so important, um but also like local elections, right? That's also super important. I'm sorry, fellow justice. you You trailed off a little bit there. You said, let unless they... dot dot dot
00:50:59
Speaker
unless they violate someone's rights as defined by the dot, dot, dot constitution. I'm still arguing myself in circles. I don't know. that is right Yes. And your even-handedness. You've brought me all the way around. Yeah. You're essentially telling everybody, Chris, to go vote. Yes, go vote. If there's nothing else. That is correct. I understand. Yeah. Go vote, people. That's just good advice. Yeah. No, it's just, um, but I do, I don't think the Supreme Court should be telling the Supreme, uh, state court, you know, hey, you guys, you guys are bad. It really does. Unless they're like, yeah. You guys are big and bad. Colorado State Court. Yeah, we're happy and so bad, Supreme Court of Colorado. Yeah.
00:51:45
Speaker
Let me see if I can where summarize here. So Sarah's siding with the petitioner and the opinion is when we said in weeks that you couldn't use evidence that was obtained without a warrant, we meant everywhere. Yep.
00:52:05
Speaker
not playing around are one ah and there so Let's overturn the precedent of the previous cases and just make this the rule ah of the land the law of the land okay when you say it like that Adam is his opinion is siding with the respondent Reluctantly but saying that like this is an issue that could be solved through legislative means Not the, the court solving it is a little heavy handed. That was my read of what you were kind of saying. As much as I want to swing this giant court shaped hammer and solve this issue, it is best solved by the legislation. And Chris is siding with the respondent, uh,
00:52:57
Speaker
saying that the 10th amendment really is, is the Trump card in this one for him, that, uh, you know, the federal government is bound by the constitution, uh, and the States have their own constitution and their own laws and the, you know, the jurisdiction, the the laws that apply to that jurisdiction closest win.
00:53:26
Speaker
I do believe you have summarized our views arguably better than we did. is yeah but lot That's just my job. Very good. Very good. So two a two to one ruling in favor of the respondent. Wildcard. I want to be honest, ah Nikki, ah that was not the outcome I was expecting.
00:53:49
Speaker
nor Yeah, it wasn't it wasn't either. I'm i'm very surprised. Fellow court members, I'm not angry. I'm just disappointed. Yeah, I'm also disappointed. I absolutely am all for if you want to come up with flowery ways to dissent that is like very common oh yeah and in Supreme Court dissents is like, you know, this incredibly flowery language or these very targeted sort of like jabs or whatnot. This is one of very few professions of like where somebody can basically just write an angry email and that's just like included.
00:54:30
Speaker
and like read it out to their glass And then everybody's just like, oh, these amazing justices who've whatever, whatever. When I air my grievances at work, they're all like, that's unprofessional and you're on a performance improvement plan. I feel like the Supreme Court like is the living embodiment of the curb your enthusiasm meme where it's like, fuck you, I'll see you tomorrow.
00:54:52
Speaker
um yeah Can you imagine how much the real Supreme Court justices hate each other? ah Some of them, not all of them. I'm sure there's cliques, but yeah. There's nothing like this. Imagine having to go to work every day with your, like, hang out with your mortal and enemy. Imagine all your coworkers at lifetime appointments and you do too. And your your job is to talk politics and religion. And disagree with each other. Oh my God. That's hell for life. Yeah. Forever. For life. Like, this is your life. I don't know.
00:55:25
Speaker
Why would you want this job? Yeah. The Whigs are very cozy. Maris Thomas has said it doesn't pay well. I was just about to ask, how much are these people getting paid? Do they get paid? Do you guys get paid?
00:55:36
Speaker
shit Well, Adam's got Adam's he's adam sponsor. Yeah, you can see my NASCAR jumpsuit. It's, I'm running out of space for advertiser patches, but I mean, he's the only one of us with that powder wig at this point. Hi, I'm and I would like to talk to you today about Jefferson's powdered wigs. No, no, no, this week's sponsors better help.
00:56:01
Speaker
um
00:56:05
Speaker
Can we get sued for saying that? We might have to bleep that out. Yeah. That might actually be a pretty good gag. Sorry. I actually think it's funny or if we bleep it. Yeah. I'm going to say, close to the ensemble so I got more room for advertiser logos. Nobody will ever know what he has said. Yeah. Let's cut this whole segment.
00:56:28
Speaker
before we Before we do any more damage, maybe we should see what actually happened in this case. I am desperately curious to know what year this happened. Were you horrifying me by telling me it was 2017? Do you take it away, Jared?
Historical Context of the 1940s
00:56:47
Speaker
It was not. It was, what was it, the 40s, I think? it was Oh, i had I had it pulled in. No, it was a 48.
00:56:55
Speaker
Ah, that was close. 1948. Wow. Yeah, yeah it was ah I have the dates. It was argued in October 1948. Oh, it was decided in June of 1949. Okay, there it is. All right. Yeah. And the last click the other case that we did was Weeks v. United States, that was 1914. So that's why i was able to or we were able to use it as precedent.
00:57:20
Speaker
Wow, very fancy planning there. Wait, we're ruling out reverse precedent, just to be clear. Yeah. That's good. That's going to keep things more easy to follow. 1949, interesting. It's so funny that I really just can't get over the fact that the police were so zealous to enforce an illegal abortion. Now that we've made our decision, can you guys provide any additional context like why this was such a priority for the cops? There is no information. No, it's not relevant. Yeah.
00:57:50
Speaker
I mean, sure, it's not it's not relevant, but I'm but i'm interested in a human interest level. Well, I guess what I should say is because it's not relevant, I wouldn't bother to write it down. Yeah, like basically, because a professor at I think it was the University of Minnesota, like, and this is a guy with a JD and a PhD, like, he nerded out over it. um That's why we were able to give all of this background information. otherwise it was just like Anyway, so JW was like convicted and And there was like, yeah because I suppose that is the record keeping style of the court. you know Yeah, that's very like forever. It's like like, here's what happened. And that's it. You get no.
00:58:27
Speaker
no salacious details because that would defeat the whole purpose of this solemn institution. That's true. I will say, just from our are doing research, some of the more recent cases, ah you will find more information. Well, first of all, it's just, you know, if it's within the last 30 years, that you're going to find information about it in newspapers online and things like that. But even, but also I've noticed that it seems like the Supreme Court started ah writing in sort of narrative story a little bit into some of the opinions.
00:59:00
Speaker
So there's a little bit of that too. Or more recently. No, no, no, like more recently. More recently. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, right. I mean, again, not a lawyer, I could be wrong. It's just, I'm just saying anecdotally from sort of what I've been reading. It's kind of a hitter. I mean, the older cases, it's hit or miss either. There's like no information or it's like, here's the whole story. Cause like with weeks, remember, like we, we detailed like all the stuff that the police talk and all the money and I'm going to go out on a wild limb and propose a conspiracy theory, which we may or may not decide is Sarah Court canon. In the last 50 years, ah Supreme Court justices have had to kind of audition in the public eye, so to speak, right? And they get like publicly televised congressional ah perina um congressional hearings to get them approved. and
00:59:48
Speaker
like especially in the last 10 years, it's become a whole circus. Every single time Trump appointed somebody and in their whole confirmation hearing was just a big spectacle. It naturally selects for outrageous personalities in a way. In the same way that like you know Nixon would never get nominated as a major party candidate now you know with his weird, untelegenic personality.
01:00:13
Speaker
Oh, maybe I'm wrong there. Yeah. counter Counterpoint. Have you ever actually watched one of those confirmation hearings? They want the most boring milk toast performance you can get. Oh, granted, that's part of the addition. But i yeah, it's the the natural, I think, public attention on those decisions and the ramifications that they clearly have, like, you know, has made them into something like a media spectacle. And I think that that just naturally self selects for outrageous personalities that do well on television.
01:00:41
Speaker
In other words, a Republican president or Democrat president would never nominate someone that they didn't think could make it through a very public hearing. right They may be the most accomplished jurist in the world with the most thoughtful opinions, but if they can't sit through a televised hearing and like not melt, they'll never get nominated in this day and age. Whereas 70 years ago, you could get away with nominating somebody who was frankly off-putting or weird and they could get through the confirmation process and average American reading the newspaper to learn about the whole proceeding would never know the difference.
01:01:12
Speaker
Americans read newspapers anymore? That's what I was about to ask. But I, but I get your point. I just read the question notifications when it comes to that headline. Let me get through this ruling and then we can wax philosophic, uh, about the, about the, uh, this is just a really interesting one. Yeah. Or in my court.
01:01:37
Speaker
english ah So this was a six to three decision that the actual Supreme Court was also torn on this one, the exact same ratio, in fact.
Supreme Court Ruling and Its Implications
01:01:50
Speaker
And the court held that while the exclusionary rule does apply to federal cases, the 14th Amendment does not require this in criminal trials in state cases.
01:02:01
Speaker
I'm gonna flip my desk. I'd like to see that. this This was in part because the exclusion of evidence was not explicitly stated in the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule was based off of the Supreme Court's interpretation.
01:02:19
Speaker
ah ah The exclusionary rule is not a necessary ingredient to the Fourth Amendment protections. They reviewed the practices of each state and found that states have like wide variants in whether they adopt the rule or they don't. I think they literally did a case study of state by state. yeah I don't remember the numbers exactly if it was like 30 states. I was wondering if they took that into account. like yeah What is the overall level of compliance across all the states?
01:02:48
Speaker
And they looked at it and they said, you know, the states, there there is no obvious direct answer here. And so the best answer, I think, is to just sort of turn it back over to the states and let them decide. ah The court, well, that's, hold on, I should, that was my interpretation of what I just read, I should say. that's yeah because again what a great model yeah not exactly clear again ah The court found that there were other methods to avoid unreasonable searches that do not fall below the due process requirements. So there are civil remedies, there
01:03:20
Speaker
you can The internal disciplining of police, public opinion and pressure can encourage police to act appropriately. So it wasn't necessary for the court to sort of dictate a remedy if the localities could come up with their own and remedy for the situation.
01:03:37
Speaker
So therefore, illegally obtained evidence did not necessarily mean that it had to be excluded in all cases. It did mean that it had to be excluded in federal cases. That was the decision in weeks, but not in the state cases. I believe this was written by Frank... Frankfurter? I think so. Was the... wrote the wrote the majority opinion.
01:04:02
Speaker
There were multiple dissents. This gets a little confusing because of the three justices that dissented, it was like ah one of them wrote a dissent and another one joined it. And the one who joined the first guy wrote another dissent and the first guy joined the second guy's dissent. So this gets a little weird. Oh, so they were, they were a team on this one. I respect that. I'm super mad about this. Wait, what?
01:04:30
Speaker
They like each like their own stories. they like yeah they They like the other person. It's like, I'm going to write a dissent. The other one was like, that's a great dissent. But I'm also going to write a dissent. And the first guy was like, well, yours is good too. It's like endorsing each other on LinkedIn, like endorsing your friend on LinkedIn. Yeah, they're they're like trying to walk away, but then one person keeps turning around and being like, add another thing. And then the other person's like, yeah.
01:04:56
Speaker
Descent 2, Descent Harder, and Descent 3, 2, Descent 4, Furious. Descent Mercenaries. Very jurisprudent of them. Descent 5, your remix.
01:05:08
Speaker
So there's a couple of quotes here that Nikki pulled out that I'm going to read off from you. So the first dissent was from Justice Murphy and Rutledge joined in this dissent. Here's a couple of quotes from his dissent. ah It is difficult for me to understand how the court can go this far and yet be unwilling to make the step which can give some meaning to the pronouncement it utters.
01:05:33
Speaker
This is an area in which judicial action has positive effect upon the breach of law and that without judicial action, there are simply no effective sanctions presently available. Oh, so true. I cannot believe that we should decide due process questions by simply taking a poll of the rules in various jurisdictions.
01:05:52
Speaker
Yeah, actually it does when you put it that way. I i i wouldn't have even considered a poll. like i I kind of agree with that to set that that piece of that design because I'm like, who cares? You're the Supreme Court. and Whatever all the other states are doing, who who cares about the other states? Not the Supreme Court of Colorado. but like What are you guys doing?
01:06:14
Speaker
Actually, actually, though, sometimes they do they look that's how they they they look at what all the what the other what the states are doing. And then sometimes that gets used to be like, well, everybody hates Jeff, therefore, like Jeff. so Yeah, outside the box. that guy Yeah, that's Mexico doing yeah have heard so I have heard that in the context of when they're making um ah like new laws, right ah like they'll yeah not not in not in the court judicial system, but in the legislation.
Conclusion and Future Discussions
01:06:49
Speaker
and the legislation
01:06:50
Speaker
um like ah folks will look and say, okay, well, like one state, say like Massachusetts, ah they'll make a law. And then Rhode Island will look and be like, hmm, that's a cool law. And then they'll make the law. And then if like enough states make the same law, then then the federal at the federal level, they'll be like, huh, maybe we should make this a federal law. And like i so I understand that that that's a comment.
01:07:12
Speaker
Uh, thing I'm not, I don't have any specific examples, but I've heard that before. Um, it's right you want to do what your friends are doing, you know, right you don't want to be left out. Well, it's that's the whole deal. Like the States are like the laboratory of democracy or whatever. Um, got another quote for you here.
01:07:33
Speaker
Today's decision will do an estimate inestimable harm to the cause of fair police methods in our cities and states. Even more important, perhaps, it must have tragic effect upon public respect for our judiciary, for the court now allows what is indeed shabby business lawlessness by officers of the law. Shabby business is such a great turn of phrase. Fantastic. If we take nothing away from this case, can it not be shabby business? It's messy, you know? It's just a messy affair. It's like a good band name. Shabby business. That's definitely a ska band in the 60s or whatever.
01:08:12
Speaker
Nicky, do you want to you want to take Rutledge's descent so that Murphy joined? Oh, yeah. So, yeah, what Jared just read off was Murphy's descent and Rutledge was like in the back hyping him up like, yeah. So then then Rutledge also wrote in with Murphy in the back and he says, quote,
01:08:31
Speaker
But the version of the fourth amendment today held applicable to the states hardly rises to the dignity of a form of words At best it is a pale and frayed carbon copy of the original bearing little resemblance to the amendment The fulfillment of whose command I had here to forethought to be an indispensable need for a democratic society Um, and he also says compliance with the bill of rights betokens more than lip service
01:09:02
Speaker
And I was like, oh, today I learned in the forties, people were saying lip service with just the same stank that we say it now. yeah the same I feel like that term was invented like four weeks before this decision was written. I know, right? It's like long slang. Yeah. They pulled it in just for this. Right. It says to be contemporary. yeah Oh man, this is, you know what? If nothing else, all these justices, they really got away with words. They're very good writers.
01:09:33
Speaker
Oh, yeah. I suppose you don't get through law school without, you know, another right. And actually, hold on, wait a second. Critical question. Can just anyone be a Supreme Court justice? I mean, it seems to be working out for us pretty fine. Yeah. No, no, no, no. Like, like, there is no there is no provision in the Constitution. There is no concept of, like, the bar in the Constitution.
01:09:58
Speaker
So there was absolutely nothing stopping Trump from nominating like Rush Limbaugh to the Supreme Court. that That's correct. I mean, except for his. Except his lack of creativity. Yes. Yeah. God saved by the skin of our teeth. I'm trying to find some quotes from ah from Frank Fredericks decision. It's not as ah it's not as scathing, but he definitely like he really does sort of like kind of drive it home. Let's see, he says.
01:10:29
Speaker
Unlike the specific requirements and restrictions placed by the Bill of Rights upon the administration of criminal justice by federal authority, the Fourteenth Amendment did not subject criminal justice in the states to specific limitations. The notion that the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is shorthand for the first eight amendments of the Constitution and thereby incorporates them,
01:10:51
Speaker
has been rejected by this court again and again after impressive considerations. For example, in Hurtado v. California, in Twining v. New Jersey, in Brown v. Mississippi, in Palko v. Connecticut. Only the other day, the court reaffirmed this rejection after thorough reexamination of the scope and function of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in Adamson v. California. The issue is closed, period. Wow, who dropped the mic there?
01:11:20
Speaker
Yeah, that really was. Yeah. that that was very level of a micro um As for the like, so what, why did we select this? um Obviously, for listeners who've listened to the previous episode, really interesting follow up.
01:11:36
Speaker
on what I think many probably would have assumed. He was like, oh, weeks the United States, you can't use evidence that you obtained illegally against people. like you know it's it You violated their Fourth Amendment right by taking their stuff without a warrant, which is bad.
01:11:58
Speaker
But then when you used it against them in a court of law, essentially what you did was made them testify against themselves. And that's, that's where the fifth amendment comes in. And, and the reality is, is like, yeah, yeah, yeah. But when they said that, we none of us realized that they were actually just talking about the feds, which like, what? Huh? And in their state by state survey, it looks like,
01:12:27
Speaker
um Let's see, after the week's decision, 47 states made some sort of decision, but it looks like only 20 states were the ones who were like, oh yeah, and also weeks applies in this state. um And so I guess the others were just like, no. Oh, wait, here we go. As of, yeah, 31 states reject the week's doctrine, 16 states are in agreement with it.
01:12:57
Speaker
that's yeah know but That's the other thing is it's not even that like the states didn't like have a rule. It's like specifically those states courts said, this is our rule. Yes, you can use it. The stunned silence. That's the sound of jurisprudence.
01:13:18
Speaker
yeah Yeah, the weight of these powdered wigs. It weighs heavy. Upon our shoulders. Yeah, upon our extremely big brains and large craniums. Really, really heavy. It's a lot. I'm feeling not motivated to go to law school to pursue a career in this. We don't even get paid for this, it turns out. No. Well, okay. We speak for yourself. Well, actually, I guess you're speaking for us because we're not supposed to talk about ourselves. We're not supposed to pay for this, apparently.
01:13:46
Speaker
Although it seems like the Sarah court's been kind of tracking pretty pretty ah closely with SCOTUS on on these issues. That is that is interesting it's interesting. It's almost like we're extremely wise and jurisprudence. I'm going to stop saying that word. Guys, can we do an easy case? like Is there any yeah case about Pokemon or like Mario 64?
01:14:12
Speaker
Well, if there is, you can bet that the court sucked the fun right out of it. I know, right? Is there a case about like a tomato versus like a shark from like, like 1910 or something? Like... Old Farley Joe versus a whole bunch of raccoons. Yeah, like a bucket of eels versus Virginia or something, like... Virginia lost.
01:14:36
Speaker
yeah the eels too much, couldn't take it. The eels persist. The eels persisted. Do you guys know that we still don't know where eels come from?
01:14:51
Speaker
Somewhere in the Sargasso Sea. Wait, wait what? yeah no hey if If anybody's looking for a YouTube rabbit hole this evening, look up. When you're done with this podcast, Sarah has- Look up where the eels come from. Yeah, Sarah's an ardent supporter of abiogenesis.
01:15:08
Speaker
ah the eels just just spontaneously generate from kelp somewhere in the ocean. You know, scientists don't really have a better ah answer than that, so it could be true. Look it up. It could be. And also sponsor us. Next episode, we'll we'll bring a scientist on to answer the question, eels, what's up? What's up with those guys?
01:15:30
Speaker
ah Okay. i think i think we've had I think we've taxed the brands of our justices enough for one day. It was a bit of fun a fun little two-parter between we and Wolf in Colorado. we've We've learned some things. Indeed.
01:15:52
Speaker
I didn't I'll be honest because we don't have we don't know what was like actually argued in front of the justices for for Cases within like the last 40 years or 50 years. They actually do have the audio available in transcripts You can actually listen to the arguments for these really for these older cases Nikki and I are
01:16:14
Speaker
Well, either way, we would make up our own arguments you know targeted at you guys, but but we would be guided by the actual arguments that were that were argued. And this one, like i I took a stab in the dark at the 10th Amendment being relevant. i was looking out That's cool. And you convinced them.
01:16:39
Speaker
um I don't, I don't feel, I don't feel, I don't feel good. I don't good about this. No, but you, you earned your lawyer wings today. That's true. Oh, maybe someday I'll get a wig. Ooh. Yeah. you You just gotta to grease the right, you gotta grease the right palms. You gotta have a successful confirmation campaign. You gotta go on TV and the senators grill you and then you get your wig. Sarah is not hiring.
01:17:08
Speaker
not that or firing i don't think I don't think it's how it works. Whatever backing the court is, we've done the opposite of that. We've decimated the court. yeah All right. On that note, ah thank you justices for being here, for for deliberating ah so intently, for trying to be so ah even-handed. You're welcome. appreciate Thank you for deciding my opinion was somehow valuable in this endeavor.
01:17:37
Speaker
Yes, and thank you of course to my co-host, Nikki. I have to say, Nikki does significantly more prep than I do and I don't think any of this would work without it. Yeah, clearly.
01:17:51
Speaker
Really appreciate that. If you won this one by the skin of your teeth, buddy. You got off lucky. We're not keeping score. I absolutely am keeping score. Here on the website world. Jeez.
01:18:07
Speaker
Seems more official. Well, because we're going to get, we're going to have some cannon running of like, you know, what, you know, with the Sarah court, I know that I know that our decisions mean something and have impact and like, if there's continuity in the plot line of this show, Oh boy, you guys are in for it. Yeah. UFO is a real does what that's cannon. Relitigated dot.com. If you want to, if you want to get into the cannon, uh, behind the Sarah court,
01:18:34
Speaker
Yeah, we'll, we'll link you to the wiki as soon as that is up and running. Just wanted to make a clarification that is not like Canon, the image company. No, it's like sort of like the the accepted, like this is, this this is truth. Yeah. This is what we, yeah. Like it's how it's like a district and Marvel MCU or Lord of the rings or yeah. Yeah. Star Wars. Yes.
01:19:05
Speaker
All right. Thank you much, everybody. And we'll see you in the next one. Good jurisprudence, everybody. Peace out.
01:19:16
Speaker
And there you have it. A two to one decision in favor of the state of Colorado. This split among our justices is interesting because the actual Supreme Court had the exact same split itself. In the end, both our court and the Supreme Court opted to defer to the states and allow them to set their own rules for when evidence should or should not be allowed. It's important to note that this decision does not reverse the decision in Weeks v. United States because that case dealt with federal courts and this case dealt with state courts. This completes the second part of our three-part series on the development of what's known as the exclusionary rule. Tune in next time for the exciting conclusion of the series
01:19:57
Speaker
That's it for this episode, but before we go, thanks again to my co-host and to our Justices. The music in this episode was written by Studio Columna and Toby Smith and provided by Pixabay. Audio mixing and producing was done by me. Thanks for listening. Please like and subscribe. And catch us at relitigated dot.com and also on YouTube at Relitigated Podcast. Until next time, I'm Jarrett, and this has been Relitigated. Take care.