Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#2 Weeks v. United States
54 Plays8 months ago
In this episode we re-argue the landmark case Weeks v. United States.
Local law enforcement entered and searched FW’s home without a search warrant. At the same time, other officers arrested FW at work. Afterward, a federal marshal conducted a second search of FW’s home without a warrant. Using the evidence from the search, the prosecution secured a conviction against FW, who appealed his conviction.
The question before the court: under the 4th and 5th Amendments, can the feds use evidence obtained without a search warrant (and in violation of an individual’s civil rights) at federal trials?
This is episode 1 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to 'Relitigated' Podcast
00:00:01
Speaker
Hi, I'm Nikki, and welcome to Relitigated, the podcast where five legally uninformed friends retry a real Supreme Court case.
Series Focus: Exclusionary Rule
00:00:12
Speaker
This episode focuses on Weeks versus the United States, and is the first episode in a three-part series that traces the development of what is known as the exclusionary rule.
00:00:23
Speaker
Quick note before we begin.
Disclaimer: Hosts Aren't Legal Experts
00:00:25
Speaker
We try our best to get the facts and decisions in the case as correct as possible, but you shouldn't trust our legal knowledge. Enjoy the show.
Casual Banter and Atmosphere
00:00:36
Speaker
Wait a second. I didn't know we were recording. I just came back. Wait a second. I came back with my water. I didn't know we were recording. Oh yeah, no, we were totally recording. Turn it over.
00:00:48
Speaker
Let's get started.
Meet the Hosts and Role-Playing Justices
00:00:50
Speaker
I'm your host, Nikki, and I am joined by my co-host, Jared. Hello. We also have three friends who will be role playing as our justices today. First, we have Adam playing an associate justice. Wait, role playing? I thought this was like a legit job. Sure, with no minor attached. Yeah, fine. I guess um guess I'm your associate justice. Hell yeah.
00:01:17
Speaker
he Yeah. Also playing an associate justice, we're joined by Chris. Hello. And finally, as our chief justice, we have Sarah. Hola.
Episode Format Overview
00:01:28
Speaker
If you're new to the show, here's how it works. Jared and I have selected a real Supreme Court case and our justices have no idea yet what that case is. We'll present the case and the story behind it and allow for a few questions.
00:01:44
Speaker
Then we'll move into oral arguments where I will role play arguing for one side and Jarrett will role play arguing for the other. Our arguments do not necessarily reflect our own opinions. It's just the gist of what was or may have been argued at the time ah from what we can tell anyway. We each get seven minutes to make our case during which the justices can interrupt us and ask any questions they like.
00:02:11
Speaker
Once the arguments are done, the justices will deliberate with each other and decide on their individual opinions. The final ruling does not need to be unanimous, y'all, majority rules. After that, we're gonna reveal when the case took place and what the actual ruling on the case was. And then we'll close with a discussion of the case's impact and how we feel about it. And as always, a disclaimer, we're not lawyers.
00:02:40
Speaker
And none of what you're about to hear should be considered legal advice. Jared, are you a lawyer? have No. How about our justices? Are you guys lawyers? I'm pretty sure I'm like legally prohibited from ever becoming a lawyer. Not allowed. That's about as far from it as you could possibly be, probably especially as far from an actual chief justice. Is there a background check at all? I'm definitely failing that.
00:03:08
Speaker
Yeah, you're all here for community service. Oh, yeah, exactly. Oh, that's good. I'm here to stay out of court, man. yeah I knew this felt like punishment. I just couldn't really put my finger on it. That makes sense. All right. So are we all ready to begin? Lego.
00:03:29
Speaker
That's what they say in court, right? Oh, yeah, actually. Tally ho. Oh, yeah. No, exactly. i Yes, of course. Yeah, we wouldn't know. We're not lawyers. Oh, yeah. No, not lawyers. All right, Jerry. ah How about you introduce our case for this episode?
Case Introduction: FW's Arrest and Evidence
00:03:44
Speaker
Absolutely. So this week or this episode, our case is weeks the United States. That's weeks as in like weeks of the year.
00:03:58
Speaker
Real quick, just upfront, we avoid using people's names. Even though they are a matter of public record, the names don't actually matter. So there's no reason to dredge up specific people just to talk about the case. And in this particular case, I'm just going to use initials. So heads up on that.
00:04:18
Speaker
Here we go. All right. Among the bustle and the hustle of Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri, police officers approached FW while he was at work and they arrested him. He had been suspected of sending lottery tickets through the mail and while FW was being arrested, other police officers went to his house to find evidence to prove it. His neighbors told them where he kept his key and the officers used the key to enter the house.
00:04:45
Speaker
They searched his room, took assorted papers and belongings, and then they turned those papers and belongings over to a U.S. Marshal. Later that day, officers returned with the same Marshal out of the belief that they might find additional evidence on a second search.
00:05:01
Speaker
They knocked on the door, someone in the house who was probably like a renter, ah just let them in. The marshal, excuse me, the marshal
Warrantless Searches and Indictment
00:05:11
Speaker
searched FW's room and took more letters and envelopes and other things that he found in a chest of drawers ah that were amongst all of his other belongings. Important to note, for both of these searches, there was no search warrant. So these were two warrantless searches conducted on the premises.
00:05:31
Speaker
Ultimately, FW was indicted in the Western District of Missouri federal court on nine charges, and the seventh count was a criminal offense for using the mail to transport lottery tickets. but Before the trial, FW took legal action against the police petitioning for the return of his possessions.
00:05:53
Speaker
His claim was that the police took, amongst other things, quote, all of his books, letters, money. It should be known, and we'll get to this later, like a lot of money. ah Papers, notes, candies, clothes, end quote, ah expensive items, and a newspaper that was published in 1790, which was considered an heirloom. He also stated that the district attorney, the marshal, the clerk of the court did not return the items to him.
00:06:21
Speaker
And according to F.W., the seizures violated the Constitution of Missouri and also his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. Now in response, the court did order the return of any property that was not actually pertinent to the criminal charges against FW, but they did deny the return of materials that were related to the charges. So if the prosecution thought that the property related to the criminal charge, they didn't have to give any of that back, but everything else they did have to give back, which I believe, actually not sure if they did or not, but they were ordered to do so.
00:07:00
Speaker
The district attorney—oh, I should read my own notes. The district attorney returned some of the property, kept the rest, and stated that the property that he kept was evidence against F.W. After the jury was sworn in for the trial, but before any evidence was given in the trial, F.W. again asked for his property to be returned to him, and again he was denied.
00:07:25
Speaker
The papers that were seized from F.W. were used as evidence against him, and F.W. again objected on the grounds that the papers had been obtained by breaking into his home without a search warrant. He again argued that this was a violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. His objection was overruled.
00:07:44
Speaker
The evidence entered included lottery tickets, there were statements referring to that lottery, there were letters written to FW about the lottery, and he was ultimately convicted of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Although i if I remember correctly from all of the charges that were brought, only the one criminal charge was the one that actually resulted in a conviction and largely because of this evidence. Yeah, that was my understanding as well. Yeah.
00:08:12
Speaker
So, F.W.
FW's Legal Challenge and Supreme Court Petition
00:08:13
Speaker
challenged the failure of the court to order all of his property returned as well as he objected to the use of his property against him in trial and ultimately petitioned the Supreme Court to have his belongings returned to him and his conviction reversed. So, the question that's now posed to our court is this.
00:08:38
Speaker
was the district court in error when it did not return all of FW's property and instead allowed it to be used as evidence against him, which thus resulted in a violation of his fourth and fifth amendment rights.
00:08:54
Speaker
Let me ask a clarifying question. Yeah, how about it? How is selling lottery tickets in the mail a lucrative business? What? Thank you. I was wondering the same thing. like Why do we care? Can we just dig into this business model for a second? How does that work? not like lotter like I mean, the guy had a job. He was running an illegal lottery.
00:09:14
Speaker
He was running the lottery? A lottery. I mean, sure. Oh, and he held the jackpot. I get it. Yeah. So like the the government generally reserves the right to ah run a lottery and they don't like competition, turns out.
00:09:34
Speaker
Yeah, understandable, understandable. I thought he was selling like state issued lottery tickets and that was somehow a business model. Okay, this makes way more sense that he was running his own lottery. Somehow that makes more sense.
00:09:47
Speaker
That's not a pro free market of our government. right that stand let's Let's just gloss over that inherent contradiction. So the initial search though, I'm gathering that that was illegal. He was stopped at the train station. Why was he stopped at the train station? Can we go into that? Oh, he was arrested. He was arrested at the train station. yeah what So sorry, lead us through the sequence of events that led to him being apprehended at the train station. Oh, he he worked he just he works there.
00:10:17
Speaker
So they just- Is that his job at the train station? I think he worked for like an express company. Sure, sure, but like the the original, why did they come to arrest him at his job? They they searched his apartment, but what tipped them off to search his apartment in the first place? He got tattled on, right? His neighbor? and Unclear as to what? the the The first search of his home and the arrest happened at the same time. Yeah, so they they went to him, he they knew he was at work, they went to his job and snatched him up.
00:10:45
Speaker
and other officers at the same time went to his house. Curious. This guy totally got ratted out.
00:10:54
Speaker
feels like it. So he was, he was on their radar for this. Something happens that they said, okay, go pick him up. And some folks were going to do that. They said, Oh, and also let's go search his house. So they did that. The second search happens later that same day, but I think i guess after the arrest, uh, they, they brought what they found to a U S Marshall because I think it was local police.
00:11:23
Speaker
who did the arrest and did the first search, but they found evidence of using the mail for conducting illegal activity, which is a federal crime. So I think they went to the marshal and the marshal looked at it and said, oh, I should go do a search and went back to the house and initiated a second search. And that search was, he literally went to the door, knocked on the door and somebody inside the house opened the door and he was like, I'm the marshal, I'm here to do a search. And that person was like, okay.
00:11:54
Speaker
appeal to authority. Yeah, that's no good. Just let them in. That's crazy. Yeah. And so that's, um, so that's the story of the second search. So yeah, ah timing's interesting on this, but, uh, all of the, both searches and the arrest all on the same day. But to be clear, the first search, the very first search, did they, or did they not have a warrant? They didn't definitely did not have a warrant. Okay. Yeah. I see.
Argument for FW: Rights Violations
00:12:20
Speaker
Hmm.
00:12:23
Speaker
I don't know, man, the government like has to follow the rules or else what are we even doing here? Yeah. And no jury or anything? Or was the jury at the trial? Yeah, there's a trial. Yeah, there is. Yeah. Once he went to trial, there is a jury. um yeah But so I think that now would be a great time to remind us all as erudite, highly educated, extremely not lawyers, ah but justices nonetheless.
00:12:50
Speaker
How are search warrants made? Tell me how search warrants are made, Chief Justices. No, seriously, how did search warrants get made? Don't cops do it. Yeah. as your attorney The police officers go to a judge.
00:13:09
Speaker
And they're like, could we search this place up? And then the judge says yes or no. And if the judge says yes, they get a paper with the judge's signature on it. Okay. So law enforcement gets evidence. They call it the evidence. They bring it in front of a judge. They say, Hey, judge, we would like to just temporarily violate this person's rights just for like a minute, just to make sure they're not like holding a gun or whatever. And the judge is like, yeah, totally cool. This guy probably has a gun might be smoking, metaphorically speaking.
00:13:38
Speaker
and then they can go and ransack your house and just search whatever? Not whatever. First, they have to have probable cause, so that's what the judge asks them for. What's a probable cause to do this search? Well, maybe we should just, I guess, make our arguments then because it sounds like the justices just have so many questions.
00:13:58
Speaker
I mean, I was going to ask if we were in in arguments yet. I was a little confused. Oh, yeah. We're still like i was her just someone. Yeah. we We're we're in factual facts of the case mode. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Discovery, if you will. That's exactly right. Maybe not. Oh, my God. I was right. Wow. Guys, I'm sure. At this point, I'm basically a lawyer. You you're not a lawyer. And I can't I can't wait.
00:14:24
Speaker
some actual lawyer to start a podcast that just takes us down.
00:14:31
Speaker
I'm going to enjoy that so much. just yeah like these way This is why these five idiots need to be stopped immediately. we We're going to get canceled. yeah This can't continue. I can't wait. We can't get canceled if we have no idea what we're doing. Somebody must stop us. We can't get canceled if no one knows who we are.
00:14:50
Speaker
Nailed it, yes. We're really cool and funny. Please don't cancel us. see um any Any more ah factual questions? So no warrants. Okay, so no warrants. They ransacked his house. They do it a second time under the office business of some random dude letting him in. m Yeah, that doesn't feel right. Doesn't feel right.
00:15:17
Speaker
Yeah, so far I'm getting rancid vibes from the US Marshall and all all the people he's affiliated with in here. So really curious to see if you can argue your way out of this one. we'll just We'll just see. Wow, that's a hostile opening take from our Chief Justice. What was that what was that confirmation hearing like like? How would you rule in this case? This is my exact answer down to the letter. Absolutely no ambiguity. This is my position.
00:15:45
Speaker
Oh, gosh. No, you can just kind of tell already, like, just from the pointed questions from the justices that, like, yeah. Yeah. ah So so you're saying I've got an uphill battle. OK. All right. I get it, buddy. All right. I'll be the heel. That's fine. But um but, you know, I'm I'm not the petitioner in this case, though, so ah What I will do is ah I will put seven minutes on the clock, and Nikki, playing the petitioner, will go ahead and ah give you the argument that you all seem to already agree with anyway.
00:16:31
Speaker
yeah Nice. Confirm our beliefs, Nikki. So, yeah. i ah Wait, has the clock started yet? Yep. yeah Oh, God, I can't manage my time. Okay. um All right. So, yes, I come to you, ah Justices, on behalf of FW, and I just want to um remind everybody, because we all know this is, you know, legally educated people, right, ah that the Fourth Amendment protects, quote, the right of the people to be secure in their houses, their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,
00:17:09
Speaker
shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
00:17:32
Speaker
So the original framers clearly intended these amendments to protect citizens and their property from unreasonable intrusions by the government without authorization.
00:17:44
Speaker
So this means that not even the government can just enter a man's home and take his stuff, especially without some sort of authorization or official process. And the court has already held in Ex Parte Jackson that this protection extends to letters and sealed packages in the mail.
00:18:08
Speaker
And where there are exceptions and when searches and seizures do happen, there have to be certain safeguards. So there needs to be warrants with oaths and truthfulness and specific descriptions of what the police are looking for. And that means everything else is to be left alone. So this This is core constitutional liberty. okay We are talking about government invasion into a person's home and into his personal business. And you know it's one thing to to open his doors and to go through his drawers. and you know That's the you know nature of the complaint here. But really what this is about is the utter violation of his right to privacy and liberty.
00:19:00
Speaker
especially when this man has no prior conviction, and really a case like this cuts to the essence of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it. So once again, the intended purpose of the fourth and fifth amendments is to limit the wide power and authority and resources of the U.S. government and federal officials against citizens you know with who have basic rights. So these amendments prevent the government from making up an excuse to just violate somebody's rights regardless of whether they're accused of a crime or not.
00:19:39
Speaker
And this these rules apply to anyone acting under color of the government. So it's not justified you know to engage in this behavior just to get a conviction, you know regardless of means. And I say that the courts are supposed to support and uphold the constitution and provide a way for people to get protection and redress. I want to remind you all that there was no warrant.
00:20:09
Speaker
F.W. immediately asked the court for return of his belongings twice. So if the government can just enter a house, take private documents, and then use them against a person accused of a crime, there might as well be no Fourth or Fifth Amendment.
00:20:30
Speaker
So the marshal should have obtained a warrant based upon information that was sworn to be true and describing specifically what he was looking for. So I say that if the court allows this evidence in and allows it to be used in this criminal case, then basically this violates the intention and the letter of the Constitution.
00:20:53
Speaker
I want to point out that the court recognized that the behavior of the officials was inappropriate because it ordered it ordered the marshal or the DA's office to return some of FW's property.
00:21:06
Speaker
It's refusal to turn over all of his property and you know just allowing the government to enter this property into evidence against him were errors in his case. And so for that reason, ah they should be they shouldn't be used in court and his convictions that were based on that evidence should be overturned. And ah with that, thank you very much ah for your time and I will take any questions that you guys have.
00:21:37
Speaker
Uh, no questions, but Jared, good luck. Cause honestly, like there wasn't a search warrant. I don't really know why this is even a case. Um, I can, I can, mean I can see, I won't get into arguments, but I can see, I can see both sides, but yeah, no warrant is, is not a good look. Big red flag on uncle Sam's part. I would like to say. Yeah. Like,
00:22:05
Speaker
Yeah, I want to be fair about this. and like you know Was the dude a criminal? Obviously, yeah. Clearly, he's running a weird personal homebrew lottery. like I think that's legal. That's probably illegal. he My client has no criminal conviction. so ah you know, based on what are these, you know, what they're using against him is stuff that they they just went into his house and went through his stuff and and just grabbed it up. Yeah. Do I respect his? He seems sketchy. But that said, my question is.
00:22:44
Speaker
out okay How How is there no warrant if they were able to produce evidence if the state thought that they could secure a conviction based on that evidence?
00:22:55
Speaker
Like, why weren't they able to get the warrant in the first place? Why was that not possible? why did did Did they try and fail? Like, what's the story there? I don't know that there even was trying. I think they just arrested him and went to his house. Interesting. The same thing. I really want to know, like like, what was the informant? Like, who tipped him off?
00:23:17
Speaker
Somebody snitched big time. It must've been, right? and like So that that's what makes this so troubling, right? like Clearly whatever evidence they had that made it feel warranted to go and raid this guy's house was not secure enough to go in front of a judge and get a real warrant, but interesting.
00:23:38
Speaker
um And turns out that is my time. Thank you, Nikki, for your wonderful points. Thank you. Thank you.
00:23:53
Speaker
Okay. Yeah. You didn't need that deep breath. Y'all ready for this? You all ready to be ah converted? Yeah. Wow me. Sell me. This is Shark Tank now. yeah Seven minutes on the clock. And for that reason, let me know when I'm good.
00:24:13
Speaker
Oh, you're great. Actually, I don't know. I don't have the timer. Just wait for the timer. OK, ah now. All right.
Defense of Evidence Use
00:24:22
Speaker
Miss Chief Justice and may it please the court, the petitioner in this case, Mr. F.W., is a criminal. They ran an illegal lottery. They used our federal mail system to aid them in perpetrating that crime, which just further compounded their law breaking.
00:24:42
Speaker
Yes, the Fourth Amendment states that, quote, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. That's in the text, absolutely. But I posit that there was no violation because the searches of F.W.'s premises and the seizure of material that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fact guilty was not unreasonable.
00:25:11
Speaker
It was, in fact, perfectly reasonable for officers to search the premises of an individual that they were already in the process of arresting in order to gather further evidence. That the information they found further showed that their beliefs were accurate makes the search seem even more reasonable.
00:25:31
Speaker
The Federal Marshal, who was presented with papers indicating that a crime was being committed, was eminently reasonable when he decided to take a look for himself, a conclusion that yielded even more incriminating evidence. And yes, of course, having come across that material that showed that a crime was being committed, it was their duty to seize it as evidence.
00:25:59
Speaker
I wanna note that these searches were not break-ins, not by any stretch. No one kicked in any doors in the middle of the night. A kindly neighbor identified a key for the officers to use. When the marshal came, literally a knock-in, someone in the house let him in to conduct his business. At no point did the officers encounter any resistance to their search activities. They were literally let into the house.
00:26:29
Speaker
So to further illuminate the reasonableness of it all, when F.W. asked for the return of his property, the district court did the sensible thing. They ordered the return of property that had absolutely nothing to do with his conducting an illegal lottery, which by the way, he absolutely was doing and was convicted of.
00:26:51
Speaker
After all, why should someone be given back something used in further and furtherance of a crime? Consider this. If the property seized was a weapon, not just papers, would you feel comfortable returning a firearm to the murderer proven to be a murderer by that firearm? You absolutely would not. It would be unreasonable to do that.
00:27:22
Speaker
that the evidence acquired just happens to be so damning for FW is insufficient reason to return it to him now that it has been seen by officers of the law. It is now known, it is known to be illegal, and so it is seized. And on the topic of papers being used against FW, there is precedent allowing for this.
00:27:48
Speaker
In a case 10 years before this one known as Adams v. New York, the Supreme Court held that when evidence is brought before the court, it does not matter how the evidence was obtained. To quote that decision,
00:28:05
Speaker
The fact that papers, to quote that decision, quote, the fact that papers which are pertinent to the issue may have been illegally taken from the possession of the party against whom they are offered is not a valid objection to their admissibility. The court considers the competency of the evidence and not the method by which it was obtained, end quote.
00:28:30
Speaker
Sure sounds to me like the Supreme Court was pretty okay with saying, I don't care how you got the evidence, but now that it's in front of me, this guy is guilty. While it is the opinion of this respondent that the seizure of FW's property once discovered was ah lawful and the use of the property to convict FW was also lawful, I recognize that the court may look unfavorably on the searches being conducted without a warrant.
00:28:59
Speaker
And I grant that there is an overstepping there that may deserve redress. And so far as that is true, then the court should punish the officers involved in the searches for their failure. This is a case of individuals being, let's say, less than perfect at their jobs. Their superiors should hold them accountable and perhaps even relieve them of their duties if they feel that this serves the will of the voting public in that jurisdiction.
00:29:29
Speaker
that one party should be punished for doing a bad job should not exonerate F.W. who, regardless of how we came to know it, we know now for a fact, is a criminal who did criminal things.
00:29:48
Speaker
If the justices today reversed the district court, they are letting a criminal go free and the officer, excuse me, the officers responsible would also face no sanction. Does that sound reasonable? No, it does not. Justices, I rest and yield to questions. Thank you. I hate it here.
00:30:15
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah. I'm passionately argued, but I'm still going to go ahead and call this the Batman doctrine, which is to say that if you can prove that there was a crime committed, it really doesn't matter what means or methods you use to obtain the evidence of said crime, including throwing punks off of a three-story ledge, et cetera.
00:30:35
Speaker
Sorry, that wasn't a question. That was really. more wasn Yeah, I just really want to talk about Batman. That is really. that So wait a second. Indubitably, indubitably, this man was a criminal, like probably ish. Still unclear on that. Well, for sure. No, he was. He was. He was convicted. He was convicted. Man's a criminal. Are you trying to say that we could and should theoretically monitor every conversation in this country for the presence of crime and then prosecute it warrantlessly should it be detected? I'm saying that if the police make a mistake,
00:31:17
Speaker
Uh, you know, if they are being a bad employee at that moment and maybe not fully following procedure, but in not following procedure happened to stumble across something that shows someone's doing something wrong. The state shouldn't shut its eyes to it just because isn't that just a shouldnt have been of bad behavior though? Like.
00:31:39
Speaker
That's just inviting everyone to breach the, that's that's why I call it the Batman doctrine. It's encouraging everyone to be like, I'm just going to push this suspect a little bit further. I'm going to get the confession. That doesn't feel right. Oh, I'm not asking the justices. I'm asking the justice to stay very, very narrow on this to the siege, the search and seizure. I'm not talking about torture. I'm not talking about torture either. that's one like You said torture. Those are your words. I just implied, you know,
00:32:07
Speaker
roughing them up and just like being a little bit rowdy, you know, Batman interrogation. Torture is the next case that we hear. Yeah, torture, of course. Of course. Agreed. Yes, 3 p.m. I believe my my my time is up. I thank you so much, Justices. I know that you will do the right thing in this case and put aside your ah your gut feelings for what is logically the correct answer. I've got to be honest, I'm so unclear what the right thing is like most of the time.
00:32:38
Speaker
Yeah, just generally speaking. Is there like one more follow up question for each each of us? Any of us? Last chance. Because because once we move on to deliberations, Nikki and I become clerks and not respondents and petitioners. I have a question. How many eventual counts were brought against this man? And how many of them actually like stuck?
00:33:03
Speaker
I think there were seven counts, but he was convicted on the, ah no, actually there were nine. Nine counts. The seventh one was the only one he was convicted on. That's where you got the seven from. Okay. I see. No further questions. Thank you, Chief Justice. On to deliberation.
00:33:27
Speaker
I'm sure this one will take a long, long time based off of the loud sigh from the dais. You may say I've been deliberating this for about 15 seconds. I hate this case. Nikki and I are now your clerks. You're demoted to talk to whoever.
00:33:51
Speaker
Who snitched like that, right? It's got to be shu this guy. Yeah, right. and That's the that's the real like underlying like true crime puzzle to the story that I find interesting at a human level. You know, it's the neighbor's cat that told the neighbor is extremely suspicious in general for knowing where his fucking house key is. Yes. No, that is like, why do you and why do you know that? yeah I don't know. Even even if they were let in, they're still technically trespassing.
00:34:21
Speaker
A renter let the police into the- Their house? Yeah, the police showed up and like, I'm a renter. I'm a renter. This doctrine of oopsie daisy. Yeah. No, I'm serious. I rent a house, okay? If the US marshals come knocking on my door and say, hey Can we take a look around? I'm gonna say, you need to take it up in my landlord, dude. I don't, ah you know, like, I just, I feel I don't have the authority for that. I don't know. I don't know anything about leases. I'm not a lawyer, but like- You also don't know what time period this was, right? Like, this may have been a more credulous time where- Oh my God, right? Wait, when was this? 12 cops on my step, like 12 cops can't be wrong against a little old me. Like, who am I to question them?
00:35:07
Speaker
And 12 cots and zero warrants. Like, I don't know. Like not a single cop could get a single silly little warrant. Literally every judge is on principle. Yeah. I just feel like on principle, we should just like not even like consider Jared's argument because of the, like how silly it is. for one Like in this day and age.
00:35:33
Speaker
Ouch. I don't care that he was a criminal. I mean, like, I do, like, you shouldn't really be, like, try not to be a criminal. Running your own lottery is no easy feat. That's like, that should be legal. That's a lot of work. I'm sure he built that brick by brick, you know? Right. And this is a time period where you're running this business by mail.
00:35:54
Speaker
Yeah. That's crazy. Yeah. What? Not even internet. Express. Right? Bars. Jeez. It doesn't even have the fucking dark net. It doesn't have blockchain. This man is a pioneer.
Deliberation on Warrant Validity
00:36:04
Speaker
We should put this man. This is the original big man. On our currency. Yeah, we should get FW on this podcast to hear his thoughts. Sorry, Evan. Really enamored with this guy's go get him attitude.
00:36:19
Speaker
industrial spirit. What are we talking about? Okay, wait a second. So this guy is definitely guilty. A criminal. He's a criminal. Ran an illegal lottery. Indisputable. Marshals figured him out.
00:36:32
Speaker
But I just can't get over the fact that they use the key under the doormat. That's just... Yeah. It still feels like trespassing. Exactly. So, like, what if, what if they just happened to stumble upon something that's, and like, ah you know, incriminating? That's interesting. What if he had, like, a picture window in his living room? Right? And there was just like... He was trying his tax of homemade lottery dates through, unclear, if the evidence would be.
00:37:00
Speaker
Like dumb, not a smart move, but that would do it. But the fact that they trespassed into his property and discovered these things, that's a violation. But then again, it was such a soft trespass, right? If they had broken through the window, I feel like this would be real cut and dry. It's a very demure trespass. Demure. Very cute. Oh, boy. Oh, boy.
00:37:29
Speaker
I'm also curious, why was this even considered like a reasonable search? like What evidence did this snitch have? you know i like It just all seems very subjective. Like, oh, well, it was reasonable for the marshals to go in. How? I mean, I don't know. Let me get back to the original snitch question. Who teed off the marshals? Also, the fact that the arrest happened the same day of the seizure. And you know guys, I've seen Serpica.
00:37:56
Speaker
I know enough to know that like if they obtained this evidence and didn't want to go get a warrant based on it, it probably wasn't good the way they got that evidence. Just saying. Oh, for sure. Yeah. I don't know. I feel like the Fourth Amendment is- Among the best amendments, the greatest amendments. Yeah. It's a pretty good one. I'll say that. It's a quality amendment. It's a nice square number. It is, you know. foundational Yeah. If you will, uh, I was going to say it's divisible. Oh yeah. There you go. See, you know, I'm not a lawyer or a mathematician, so I don't even, maybe it's very important. Maybe let's numbers scare me at a, maybe let's not talk about those. Um,
00:38:44
Speaker
See, you mentioned divisible by two and I lost my train of thought. All I know is that I think Nikki's argument was better. yeah unubitably And I don't really love cops. Sorry if you're a cop and you're listening. I'm sure you're a wonderful person, but as an institution, I'm a little afraid of you.
00:39:01
Speaker
um um Anyway, all I'm saying is that like, I respect this guy's hustle. I think that's my point. I respect this guy's hustle. Running an interstate lottery home brew from your apartment through the mail and like obviously the marshals are going to figure that out eventually like you're using the federal mail, but still like they should have gone through the proper channels, gotten and the evidence without beating a man half to death, brought it before a judge, gotten the warrant. Like this guy's not threatening life and limb. He's not a terrorist. He's just
00:39:35
Speaker
I'm not really clear what social crime he's committing. It's illegal, probably, I assume. But like what harm is he really doing? Given that, like it's not life or death. He's not going to blow up the civic center, right? He's not going to go, I don't know, drive a bus off with him. He's not endangering the public imminently. So like go through the due process to get the warrant. like Why not? Unless you used really underhanded methods to get the evidence to get the warrant, is what I'm saying.
00:40:04
Speaker
It just feels like the cops were trying to meet a quota, you know? Is this a quota thing? Yeah. We have to bust four dudes running illegal lotteries per month if we're not doing our jobs. We haven't really arrested anybody recently. work there Apparently too many. You could just like break into any dude's apartment and just bust a lottery. Jeez. There's all chock-a-block all over the b place.
00:40:31
Speaker
Yeah. Okay. Well, i'm I feel pretty firm in my stance, Adam. It seems like you're you're pretty firm on the fact that FW seems like he had a good business thing going, whether or not it was illegal. It was. I feel really bad for Jarrett and just this general prosecution argument. Jarrett will be fine. and He'll be fine, but I want to give him one more chance to convince us because Do you? That was a, that was a, is it? I mean, that's not how this works. I order, I mean, order in my court. Do the justices not like basically make it up as they go? I'm not clear actually. I mean, who's going to tell you that you can't? Exactly. We have oversight over you guys. Our entire system works on good intentions in the sense that everyone's going to follow decorum and the moment they don't, we have no idea what to do. So I'm going to break decorum. Listen, Jarrett, give me one more chance.
00:41:20
Speaker
Are you basically giving me the opportunity to submit an amicus brief on my own behalf? but ah Yeah, if you want to get fancy about it. Okay. That was a very lawyer term to use. Are you sure you're not a lawyer? No, I mean, you just heard me argue.
00:41:39
Speaker
So that's true. It was. Yeah. Yeah. Can you give me any insight into how the evidence was obtained, led the marshals to their initial search, because that's what I'm really hung up on. Like the nature of why they decided in the first place that this guy was worth tailing, callering and like searching his house.
00:41:58
Speaker
I think those are official terms. Those feel really official. Like what led the marshals to those decisions in the first place? Do we have any insight into that? Well, so there's two different agencies. So the original police officers, I think were local police. We do not know what information they had prior to making the arrest. The marshal, the police walked in the marshal's door with incriminating evidence. I see. Got it.
00:42:27
Speaker
So the marshal was just sitting in his desk and all of a sudden a local cop comes in and says, Hey, look what we found. um Okay. So this is, this is, this feels like collusion between the local police and the marshals to fabricate evidence.
00:42:42
Speaker
and I'm still led to this question of like why did they not pursue a legitimate search warrant? like This is not a time-sensitive matter. like Sure, the guy's going to mail out some lottery tickets or whatever. but well I was going to say maybe it was. so Maybe it was. He was right. He was about to like, maybe someone was going to win.
00:42:59
Speaker
you don't know and yeah ouresation yeah
00:43:05
Speaker
You don't know. I mentioned this in my argument and maybe I shouldn't bring it up again because if you're not talking about it then clearly I didn't do a very good job but the Case adams v new york in that case the. The officers had a search warrant but it was like a narrow every search warrant says you can these are the things you're allowed to actually look for. And while they were looking for those things they found a bunch of other stuff and they were like well we're here so they took that.
00:43:37
Speaker
that interesting That defendant sued and was like, hey, that stuff was illegally seized. It went to the New York Supreme Court, or I'm actually not sure what the but it's called in New York State, if it's a Supreme Court or Superior Court or whatever it is. And they were like, that that doesn't violate New York State law. So then they took it to the Supreme Court saying it violated their constitutional rights and the Supreme Court at that time, this is 10 years before this case, said,
00:44:03
Speaker
Okay, so the police were in error in how they seized it, but the court is not responsible for you know ah waxing philosophic about the providence of how the evidence came before them, just whether the evidence supports the claim or doesn't.
00:44:26
Speaker
ah So you could I guess it could be argued that there was precedent on will in the land that ah Maybe led to police not necessarily always feeling that they needed to yeah. Yeah Yeah, I can accept we don't we don't accept that. We don't care about the Providence, but you got Yeah, I I think but I do I just wonder if that's like is that even relevant like why they did it does it matter and like for whether or not the fourth amendment was violated. Like whether the police aired because it was an oopsie or whether because they were malicious. Does it matter? Uh, yeah, I feel like it matters. It probably matters.
00:45:12
Speaker
Yeah, I feel like you can't just it matters because one of the things you said that really stood out to me was ah the nature of how the evidence is obtained and I'm paraphrasing here isn't as relevant as what the evidence tells us about the nature of a crime that was committed. And that's really scary because that's just inviting wholesale fabrication of evidence to come to any conclusion that you want the court to come to.
00:45:36
Speaker
but If you don't care about the providence of the evidence whatsoever than like you're just inviting fabrication in my mind. Yeah anything else charge. I think my. ah I think my amicus brief has gone far beyond what should be allowed. I'm very surprised that there has not been ah objections from opposing counsel. This is a very liberal, freewheeling kind of court. I am in Judge's chambers arguing my case and opposing counsel is outside being like, this is fine.
00:46:12
Speaker
Are you familiar with give them in an enough approach to hang himself yeah basically and my my whole deal is they just went in his house with like no permission and just took up his stuff. And then we're like also crimes. Maybe this will help. The question is. Was it wrong? Was it was was the district court in error? When? It said.
00:46:41
Speaker
we're only gonna give you some of your stuff back. And the other stuff we're gonna hold onto because it pertains to you to your criminal charges. Was that wrong? Or should the court have said, yeah, all of this was was taken from you in violation of your rights and we're going to give it all back to you. And once they give it back to you, obviously it can't then be taken to be used against
Ruling: Overturning Conviction
00:47:07
Speaker
you in court. so My position is and that it violated his rights under like like literally the Bill of Rights.
00:47:14
Speaker
and my position my my role-played position is ah is that ah this the search was not unreasonable. And while, yes, the officers may have been in error, that error should not change the fact that like this evidence is real and it proves he's a criminal.
00:47:40
Speaker
Yeah, no. ah His rights were violated. I'm sorry. It's not gonna, and the whole argument too about like, well, you know, maybe we should ah punish the police officers who, you know, potentially illegally obtained this evidence without a warrant. I don't even, I'm like, yeah, you you should, you should do that too. I mean, I don't know. It just, it all feels like if Police are allowed to go into anybody's home because some rando snitches about something that's, mind you, this is not even like suspect suspicion of like a violent crime. I didn't even corroborate about it. No, it's not like bro was building a bomb in his attic. Could be anyone's word that they went on, yeah.
00:48:26
Speaker
Yeah, that's why I'm like, who is the snitch, right? Like, how reasonable is the, like, what looks what evidence did this snitch have that made it seem so reasonable for them to just knock, knock, knock and walk in and search everything and take evidence um without a warrant?
00:48:44
Speaker
Just i just want to chime in that that's literally what the warrant process is about for the cops to go to a judge and be like This is what we think this guy's up to and the judge is like, why do you think that? um And then they go through her back and forth and the judge decides whether they can go in that person's house and take their stuff And I think that that process is lovely and it should be there and it's there for a reason to protect the rights of the citizens in this country from just being barged in on by the police ah for letters, like paper, you know? Mere paper? Like, let's be serious here. This man was printing beautiful pictures with president's faces on them and distributing them to the public. And you wish to convict him for this crime. So, okay, this is where we're supposed to like go through the
00:49:38
Speaker
arguments of like, all right, what if this guy stole a bunch of polonium from like a medical lab and you know, the cops screwed up when they were searching him. So now we just got to give him his polonium back, like, you know, just taking this to his logical extreme. This guy stole a bunch of anthrax from the CDC and the cops are really messed up when they read his Miranda rights. And now we got to give him his polio back.
00:50:04
Speaker
like I think that's what we're supposed to consider here, like this notion that the cops have clearly come into things that are either yeah in and intended to be used to aid a crime or in the process of aiding a crime or have been used to aid a crime. yeah they have They have evidence to that extent and now they're supposed to give it back just because they didn't follow some you know Yeah, procedural. like I think i'm I'm thinking about it like I like the gun got analogy earlier. It's like more of a well, was this being used like so I'm you know, Fifth Amendment, right? The presentment or indictment, right? So like you're being presented with this evidence. Okay, the evidence was found regardless of how it was found. It's now it was used
00:50:51
Speaker
per the trial, right he was convicted. So the evidence is now, okay, this is belongs to that conviction. um And so while it's true that he should have been yeah returned ah all of his property, now some of his property was actually elevated now to a new status of being used to commit a crime or and as per the conviction. Um, so I think it kind of changes status a little bit. It's more than just his property. Um, but yeah, it's, it's, that's like really, it's really stretching it. It's really stretching it. Um, so, yeah, I don't know. Should've gotten a warrant.
00:51:38
Speaker
should just should have gottenrant You should have just gotten a warrant. like Literally twice. Twice, thank you. Yes, right? This old kabuki is set up for a reason. If the good guys don't follow the rules, then what are we even doing here? What are we doing? Thank you. Okay. Justices, I think that we have had ample discussion. um I think we, uh, clerks or I don't know how I should be addressing you guys, Nikki and Jared. Clerks, I think we are. That's so demeaning. can yeah
00:52:13
Speaker
Our minions, I think we are ready to give you our final decisions. Yeah, lay it on us. Yeah. um Okay, well, um associates, would you like to would you like to go first and then I'll close it out?
00:52:33
Speaker
You should not only let this man go, but you should put him in charge of like whatever local state lottery authority he wants to run. This guy's a go-getter. This guy has plans. This guy has dreams and ambition. Let this man run the state lottery commission. He's not a criminal. He's a go-getter. He's a white collar, ambitious man. Put him in charge. I arrest my case. Do I arrest Rested. Your case has been rested. Chris?
00:53:01
Speaker
I concur. They should have gotten a warrant. This is a clear violation of rights. Thank you. Oh yeah, wait a second. That's what I was supposed to say. Yeah, they should have gotten a warrant. And the fact that they didn't means that this entire thing's a sham. It was all based on evidence that was like obtained illegally, right? like They don't get a warrant. The evidence is legally obtained. like And therefore, it should have all this stuff returned. And there really is no evidence to like convict them of it.
00:53:29
Speaker
Yeah. There you go, Adam. I knew you'd get there. Uh, yeah. All I can say is ditto. Um, should've gotten a warrant twice.
00:53:42
Speaker
All right. We have a unanimous decision from our justices on the side there. They come down on the side of the petitioner that the searches were unconstitutional and he, F.W. should be giving his stuff back. And because they use that stuff to convict him, the conviction would get overturned.
00:54:08
Speaker
All right. Uh, sorry, just real quick, Nikki, Sarah, something you said earlier, just like, okay, yeah, the the police screwed up fine. If you're saying that like, well, we should, we should punish them, like,
00:54:23
Speaker
Well, why don't we let F.W. go and punish them? So I think this should be known and um as ah our our court is now setting the porque no los dos doctrine. Oh, yeah. Scholars of alternative literature referred to as the uno reverse. yeah
00:54:43
Speaker
It's not checkers, it's chess, you know. It's the long game. Yeah. Awesome. We should take the investigators and make them and charge the illegal lottery and see how they like it. It's very stressful. There's a lot of ins and outs. You got employees on time. It's all under the table. Very complicated. It's cash business or gold. Oh yeah. But seriously, like, I really want to know more about this guy's lottery empire. I know. This is fascinating. How do you get in? I'll give you one start at Black Market Empire.
00:55:18
Speaker
Just a little um a piece of trivia is that um lotteries in American history have not been uncommon. You see this come up actually quite a bit in American history. This one is called policy and Nicky and I have been obviously reading a lot of court cases and we keep seeing like phrases like policy paraphernalia and we're like, what the hell does that mean? And then reading, you know, some, some write up or I think like a law journal or something like that. We have to like Google stuff because we're not going- Oh, this is going to be a Wikipedia hole. I go down and I can already see it. I'm Googling this. Wait, no, don't Google it yet.
00:55:57
Speaker
Spoilers. yeah let's get into ah Let's get into what actually happened. yeah totally more right know All right. So we have the ruling and um what happened was the actual Supreme Court ah came to a unanimous decision and this incurred this occurred in 1914.
Historical Impact: Exclusionary Rule Established
00:56:21
Speaker
Whoa. That's a long time ago. This is like at least 50 years before I guessed.
00:56:26
Speaker
Yeah. Okay. And so their ruling was that the Fourth Amendment limits the federal courts and its officers in their use of power and authority, and this is to protect individuals, their persons, houses, papers, and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law.
00:56:48
Speaker
So the court held that the Fourth Amendment protects everyone, regardless of whether they are accused of a crime. And the Constitution is supposed to protect the great fundamental rights. And so all of those who are supposed to enforce federal laws are obligated to follow it.
00:57:07
Speaker
The courts are also supposed to protect constitutional rights. Therefore, ah they can't condone the execution of federal criminal laws for the purpose of getting convictions. They can't allow the government to keep the belongings of the accused for the purpose of evidence in proceedings unless there is a warrant. So if wrongfully seized, they must be returned.
00:57:31
Speaker
And if the defendant asks for return of the material in a timely manner and is refused, and the materials are used in evidence over his objection, then the conviction should be reversed. So this is this decision established the exclusionary rule. So basically, that means the court cannot use evidence that officers obtain by illegal search and seizure.
00:57:57
Speaker
So basically, andoctr is soundly you should see me fist pumping right now.
00:58:06
Speaker
Batman is a fascist. They knew what's up in 1914. So this removes incentive for federal officers to engage in illegal servicef ah searches. Right. It's a precedent. some Some of my takeaways on this one.
00:58:23
Speaker
um is you know i like i think of everything and sort of like so what right like why did we bring you this case why is this case interesting especially because it seems for for the three of you that you kinda already had it We're gonna go one way from the beginning. This feels like the her case for establishing this kind of precedent, right? That's the sense of it. Yes, and so the exclusionary rule, obviously very important. It's probably what you were thinking of, even if you didn't know what the name of it was when we were going through the case. Certainly when I first started reading about it, I was like, This is weird. Isn't this a thing? And the answer is yes, it is. It's the exclusionary rule.
00:59:08
Speaker
um i There are some some caveats that I think are or important. Number one, this was a federal case. So the FW was tried in federal court by the federal government. So this ruling applies to officers of the federal government and the federal courts. What this case does not talk about is the local police. State courts. Also want to point out it really didn't talk much about the Fifth Amendment, like at all. Well, yeah, yeah. Yeah. It's true, too. Yeah, it's just sort of like, maybe they- I tried to bring it in. Yeah, you did try, Chris. Good job. I tried. Yeah. Very much appreciated.
00:59:55
Speaker
Yeah, totally, totally skipped it. I guess you really didn't have like, I guess you're going in order by the time you're done with the Fourth Amendment, you kind of already have the answer. Yeah, we're done there. I mean, I don't care. Yeah. I dare you forward to soldiers in my home. but So wait another thing that I ah had in mind as I was or or like something that I walked away from in my research was like the moment it hit me that I thought to myself,
01:00:23
Speaker
ah Well, I think Adam, you had said, wow, this happened 50 years earlier than I thought I did. I think my reaction to it, like when I went to bed the other night after doing some research was like, wait, wait, wait, wait. like From like the 1790s to 1914, what was going on? yeah Right?
01:00:47
Speaker
oh yeah right Like 14 is like, Oh, that was a long time ago. But the answer is like, it, maybe it wasn't long enough. It was bad. I don't know. I just felt like, like running your own mail order lottery. It just felt like a really 1960s or 70s kind of enterprise to me. I don't know why I just felt right. But you know, honestly, the fact that this guy was running his mail order, home brew lottery of the 1910s.
01:01:14
Speaker
What a go-getter. I know. That's what America's all about. and I mean, also it shows like how solid the US postal system is. like It just doesn't get very much credit. You're going to deliver your illegal lottery tickets on time, even though it's on years ago.
01:01:32
Speaker
Everybody, make sure you go personally thank and show gratitude to to your local mail person. Listen, everybody listening at home, you go to your stationery drawer right now. You go draw the home brew lottery card. It can be a bingo card. No. It's nice and No. No. Wait. Wait. Hit music. notous and Send it to your loved ones.
01:02:00
Speaker
and here what do you yeah Great thing about the U.S. mail, your mail-in ballot, it's going to get there. Your illegal lottery entry, it's going to get there. The federal marshals probably won't open your mail to preempt your thought lines. Probably not. I mean, probably. Who knows, honestly. It's on the exception clause. Wait, is that what we said? The exclusionary rule. Exclusionary. Man, we learned something today, and I'm really proud of us.
01:02:30
Speaker
Oh, I also wanted to mention the ah the stuff that the police took, because I was reading this case, and that was really kind of, ah that kind of came out to me. Once again, this was this you know this case was heard in 1914. But let's see, it said that what was taken was one leather grip value about $7, one tin box valued at $3, one Pettis County, Missouri bond value $500,
01:03:00
Speaker
Three mining stock certificates, which defendant is unable to more particularly describe, valued at $12,000. What? And certain stock certificates, in addition there too, issued by the San Domingo Mining Loan and Investment Company, about $75 in currency, a newspaper published in 1790, which is an heirloom in like other property. So wait a second, these people wrote their cryptocurrency on paper? Is that what you're telling me?
01:03:29
Speaker
And all of this was in 1914. Once it got to the $500, I was like, wait, what? They took a lot of money. Yeah, that's the same. We have the conversions if you'd like to hear. Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, I was going to worry about this $12,000 piece of paper that they stole. Yeah. my own significant So the $7 leather grip would today um in today's money would be worth $214.72. The tin box was $92.02. The $500 value like bond would have been $15,337.
01:04:06
Speaker
dollars That one bond. Yeah. Uh, the 12,000, what was the 12? Oh, $368,095. Jeez. Um, yeah. I mean, if you, if you walked into my house and took $368,095, I think I would also be like, Hey, um, give that back. yeah If you walked into my house and took $200, I would be like, give me my shit back.
01:04:33
Speaker
To be fair, if you walked into my house and stole a bunch of random papers, they probably wouldn't be worth anything. But I'd be upset anyway. Because they're mine, damn it. Yeah. Those are my Pokemon memes that I printed on my paper with my ink. So I mean, it was I mean, I'm sure part of it was like, give me my lottery papers back. But like, it wasn't like, oh, you know, my, you know, my forms and blank paper. It was like actual stuff that was. Wow. Yeah. ah Yeah. I'd be pissed. Honestly. Yeah, it sucks.
01:05:07
Speaker
We did the right thing today here, guys. Agreed. I think so. Yeah. We allowed this really even though illegal slick, ah like ahead of his time, I want to say, criminal, ah off the hook for his totally dope home lottery business. And I feel good about that. Well, I don't know. Was he really off the hook? Because all of this happened to this guy.
01:05:31
Speaker
Like all of this happened. So in order for the Supreme Court to like take a look, like you already have to go through and like be convicted and then work your way through the appeals process. This guy spent 20 years in court. I think it was a three year process. I think it was like 1911 where he was arrested. And I don't, it's not clear to me whether he got his stuff back actually. Wow. Oh no, the tin box. What about the newspaper?
01:05:59
Speaker
Yeah, 1790, the Yeah, we don't, we don't know like, cause any discussion of this case is about, Oh, the exclusionary rule and the, so this guy like helps found like basically American like legal doctrine, but like he lost a bunch of his shit and probably went to jail or something. Um, wow. In a whole bunch of homebrew lottery tickets to have protection from the cops stealing our shit, I guess. but and the When, uh, when Nikki and I were talking about this a little bit earlier today, doing a you know sort of last minute prep,
01:06:32
Speaker
ah Nikki said something to me that I think is really sort of obvious in retrospect, ah but equally profound, which is like, just cause it's in the constitution doesn't actually really make it a right. It has to be violated and then you have to sue and then the courts have to affirm it's a right. That's a good point. Cause that's what it feels like, right? Like yeah cops were like, I mean, it says we have to get a warrant, but like,
01:07:02
Speaker
if we don't and no one punishes us, then like, do we have to get one? And the answer is like, I guess not. But then the court was like, no, you do. And it's like, okay, now we know because even though it was written, we didn't know. I mean, I bet you there was so much complaining about this decision when it came out though. Like just so much. I have. Okay. So that's the perfect segue. So I want to do a shout out. So, but these older cases,
01:07:31
Speaker
If, uh, if anybody is listening to this is interested in law, but it just sort of getting into it, you know, basically the way I basically me, uh, there is, so OEA, uh, which is like, oh, Y easy. If you do a Google search for that, that is a wonderful resource on Supreme court cases. And for all of the cases that are recent enough that they were recorded,
01:07:58
Speaker
OEA has the recordings. You can go listen to the oral arguments, and it's great because then they also have the transcript, so you can read it. For cases old like this one, Nikki and I really have to rely on like whatever we can find, and the reality is we don't have a ton of time. like I would love to go to libraries and like look up newspapers in microfis and if I could. And then also like a subscription to Nexus, Lexis, Nexus, yeah whatever. It's a lot of money.
01:08:33
Speaker
If you would like to sponsor us to get us access to that stuff, that'd be great. But ah one thing I did find was this article written by Gerard V. Bradley in 1986. It's a PDF that's available. If there's a way for me to post a link to the PDF wherever we post this, I will try to do that.
01:08:54
Speaker
ah The article's title, if anyone wants to look it up, is present at the creation question mark, a critical guide to Weeks v. United States and its progeny. And it was a great resource for me, but what it's really talking about is, it's like a quick history of the exclusionary rule, at which Weeks is obviously a major case in, and so that's where it kind of starts. And he has a really great quote from somebody from that time when this decision was handed down.
01:09:23
Speaker
who very much did not agree with this ruling. And this is a little bit of where I got the whole like, if the cops screwed up, punish the cops, you don't just let someone go because someone else screwed up. Like that doesn't make any sense. um And so here's a ah quote from a gentleman ah named to Wigmore back in the day around 1914 when this came out. He said,
01:09:51
Speaker
Titus, you've been found guilty of conducting a lottery. Flavius, you have confessedly violated the Constitution. Titus ought to suffer imprisonment for crime and Flavius for contempt. But no! We shall let you both go free!
01:10:07
Speaker
We shall not punish Flavius directly, but shall do so by reversing Titus's conviction. This is our way of teaching people like Flavius to behave, and of teaching people like Titus to behave, and incidentally of securing respect for the Constitution. Our way of upholding the Constitution is not to strike at the man who breaks it, but to let off as somebody else who broke something else. Wow, that's messy.
01:10:34
Speaker
like you know, obviously I wasn't going to like directly quote the guy in my arguments. I was like trying to like get it in there in more modern language. I failed. Not that I think this argument probably moves you anyway. Uh, it doesn't move me, but it did, but it did make me stop and think like, huh, that last line does kind of make sense a little bit. Porque no los dos. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, so I think, yeah. So the Sarah court has issued the porque no los dos doctrine. Yep.
01:11:06
Speaker
Yeah. No, this was, this is a, this is excellent. I appreciate, it appreciate the discussion. How's everybody feeling right now? On the right side of history. ah I feel like I could go be a lawyer now. Yep. Oh, you absolutely can. I think we leveled up. Yeah, I know. We're absolutely. Yeah, we got some XP. Yeah. We're accolade lawyers now. Ooh, nice. but but but but but but but I'm ready for a job change from whatever white collar nonsense I'm doing to this other white collar nonsense.
01:11:41
Speaker
like i'm I'm already just shuffling papers. Can't they just be law papers? Right. I want them to be officious and have the weight of history behind them. Well, good job team. Good job, my my ah my fellow court members. I feel like we did a good law today.
01:12:01
Speaker
Yes, like I concur. Hey, thanks thanks to our ah thanks for everybody for being here. Thanks for the discussion. ah Thanks for the prep. Thank you for considering my opinion important in really any context. We look ah we look forward to ah chatting with you at the next one.
01:12:23
Speaker
so We're not lawyers. Oh, God. I think everything that happened previous to this moment proves that. Pretty effectively. So today,
01:12:38
Speaker
we had a unanimous decision in favor of weeks in that the conviction should be overturned because the search was a illegal. This ruling actually matches the real Supreme Court's ruling.
01:12:51
Speaker
Sarah also added that if police illegally searched for and seized evidence, then the charge should be dropped and the police should be punished. We're calling this the Porque No Los Dos doctrine. 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.
01:13:21
Speaker
Audio mixing and producing was done by Jarrett. Thanks for listening, please like and subscribe, and catch us at Relitigated dot.com. Until then, I'm Nikki, and this has been Relitigated. Goodbye!