A couple of days ago over at Probable Cause: The Legal Blog with the Really Low Standard of Review, I alluded to the fact that ideas for blogging come to me faster than I am able to keep up. Although I don’t get nearly enough time to write, I’m constantly sending myself email messages from my phone saying, “blog about this!” or “blog about that!” Then when the time comes, I feel almost overwhelmed with all I want to say and have difficulty deciding how to focus.
Today is such a day.
Well, I’m sure you noticed that this place you’ve arrived at is known as “Fresno Criminal Defense.” So I’m also sure you’re not expecting me to write about the War in Iraq, or Afghanistan, nor will I — as I did yesterday — have anything to say about the Mexican-American War, although actually all those countries have some kind of tie-in with the War about which I will write: a War we are losing in every possible way.
A War, in fact, which we cannot win. Because to win, you see, we’d have to be something other than what we are…
Four years ago, Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court laughingly suggested that “the increasing professionalism of police forces” meant that the deterrent effect of the Exclusionary Rule the courts had previously applied to violations of constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, was not really necessary anymore. (See Hudson v. Michigan (2006) 547 U.S. 586; ignore the fact that Scalia had to twist the source he relied upon to arrive at his conclusion.)
“[M]odern police forces are staffed with professionals,” Scalia said.
If Fresno police chief Jerry Dyer gets his way, well, if this ever was true — and I seriously doubt it ever was — it certainly will not be going forward.