|
Vermont judge rejects US Supreme Court decision |
|
|
|
|
Written by Martin Williams
|
|
Thursday, 24 August 2006 |
A Vermont judge June 15 rejected the latest US Supreme Court ruling to expand police power to search private homes without notice, citing state law. The Supreme Court recently held that evidence seized illegally and without first knocking could be used at trial, but that ruling did not change state laws to the contrary.
District Court Judge Robert Bent held that state police must knock and announce themselves before they can conduct a search, even with a warrant, or the evidence they find could be thrown out of court. He sided with a dissenting federal opinion, which said allowing illegally obtained evidence could lead law enforcement officers to ignore search laws.
“Evidence obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution, or as the result of a violation, cannot be admitted at trial as a matter of state law,” Bent wrote, citing a state case as precedent. “Introduction of such evidence at trial eviscerates our most sacred rights, impinges on individual privacy, perverts our judicial process, distorts any notion of fairness and encourages official misconduct.”
“The exclusionary remedy should remain in full force and effect,” Bent wrote, “at least in our small corner of the nation,” as he tossed out evidence the VT State Police Drug Task Force took from Ellen Sheltra during an Oct. 12 raid in Island Pond. Sheltra was charged with possessing 88 grams of marijuana and four guns. It was unclear whether the state would appeal the ruling.
|
Martin Williams |
| About the author: |
| | |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 24 September 2006 )
|
Volume 1 
The Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer
