Judge throws out evidence because of bad google translations

[Tech_Dreamer]

On 6/16/2018 at 10:03 PM, dalekphalm said:

Yes. The cop did directly violate his rights, by not properly attaining consent to a non-mandatory search of his vehicle.

Proper steps were not taken. The guy used Google Translate. I applaud his quick thinking in the field, but the translation was gibberish. That by itself invalidates any consent.

 

What part of him trying to ask questions through out & before to attain consent before moving further was directly "violating" his rights at that time?  replaying the scenario , guy got stopped like any other person , cop then proceed to ask for details of vehicle & owner, communication error right from there, uses a popular language translator to ask basic questions, so far so good,  due to suspicion asks further details to search , translator messes up , guy mistakenly says yes to a confusing question , gets vehicle searched , finds illicit drugs, that's a mighty 'direct' 'violation' of his rights right there. 

 

i agree he should've waited for further securing the situation , But as a cop with proper authority to do so in the matter all they require was a yes or a no for the time being with a 'trusted' platform to initiate a search , speaking of rights he has the right to refuse to speak or produce his id , but he consented to all those along with these.

 

There are situations more skewed than this  directly threatening to a persons rights, this is just another solid loophole strategy rather than violating 'his' rights. this is just another case of hanging on the last piece of loose thread to get away from a crime using it as an excuse.

 

Quote

If I stop you in your car, and start saying "Can find you help me find the car?" in broken English, and you say "yes?", does that give me the right to search your vehicle without a warrant? No. It does not. I, as the authority in this situation, cannot guarantee that your "Yes" was any kind of consent on the matter, and not you just being like "WTF is this dude talking about?"

exactly, i wouldn't say 'yes'  to something like that , like he did.

 

Quote

 

It's quite clear actually. Despite the fact that the guy is obviously guilty - which is actually irrelevant. Constitutional rights are the most important foundation of any free and just country - which is something Americans claim to very dearly.

Yes it is and at that given moment he did provide the consent which is what mattered to a question & situation in hand. the end argument is "i didn't know" so i said yes to everything, it's a bad part from the subject as well .  i don't know, should google be held accountable in this case? probably not , should the cop be held accountable for misunderstanding ? partially yes , should he have asked for a translator from the beginning & said no to other questions later? probably,  

 

it's simply a grey area , we can go to any direction within this issue,  to any direction we want. if you know what i mean. in a nutshell it's a loophole to nullify the evidence provided .

 

 

Quote

We're not talking about some random mental issue. Please stop moving the goal post. Furthermore, if someone breaks a law due to a mental condition, do you just think they get a "get out of jail free" card? No. They get a mental evaluation, and if they fail said evaluation? They get sent to a secure mental health facility - crazy person jail, for the lay person.

The goal post is already moved for this specific subject compared to the rest of the people going through the same event of stop & search , stop pretending that you're not doing it for this issue as well , this is simply a grey area, This is just another loophole of an argument for an obvious get away card.  if he stayed quiet like he had the right to or when he ' couldn't ' understand or just plain refused everything would've been a different outcome, it's simply a grey area , he willingly communicated & provided consent on both initial contact to provide id & explanation & later the search .

 

On the mental health issue, you're right , similarly he's getting checked on whether he speaks or understands it or not properly, But  all he needs to do is just  pretend & the case is done & he's not going anywhere , a real fairness in judgement right there. but that too is a grey area , whether he speaks it or not. assuming he's " innocent " he was still doing something much more illegal , throwing away evidence because of something obvious is crazy too .

 

 

Quote

Yes it is obvious that this man is guilty.

That's why it's such a shame that the police violated his constitutional rights, and ruined the case.

Don't want that to happen? Hold police to higher standards.

This was easily avoidable.

i agree police should have better standard to avoid something like this in the future , but they already have a good system in place to catch bad guys & preserve peoples interest & rights, but a lot of peoples times are gonna be wasted when a stricter rule is applied , when the process demands a thorough check & extended verification for every single personnel out there on base of race & language barrier.

[Sakkura]

18 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Maybe they should've done a Google Reverse Image Search to accurately confirm the presence of drugs.....

 

This is really quite stupid. Our legal system is so totally broken. You can break the law and get away with it through ignorance.

Would you prefer the police could get away with breaking the law, even though they're the ones who are supposed to uphold it?

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Would you prefer the police could get away with breaking the law, even though they're the ones who are supposed to uphold it?

Maybe it's a silly law,  I mean it does sound pretty stupid that this bloke might escape conviction when caught red handed with a boot load of drugs. He had no drivers license, no fingerprint scan results, claims he can't speak English and only has a paper visa and car registration, this is sufficient grounds for a vehicle search in most countries.

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Maybe it's a silly law,  I mean it does sound pretty stupid that this bloke might escape conviction when caught red handed with a boot load of drugs. He had no drivers license, no fingerprint scan results, claims he can't speak English and only has a paper visa and car registration, this is sufficient grounds for a vehicle search in most countries.

"this is sufficient grounds for a vehicle search in most countries." - I alluded to this early on: yes it is. It still means is inherently invasive and wrong on most countries. Yes it is possible most countries get it wrong, we certainly do get it wrong too.

 

If your standard is 'Can I find others who do it worst?' Then you will always find such examples and logically waltz yourself right into totalitarian fascism. It is never a good idea to go down that route it's far better to justify your reasons for wanting to amend the laws you want amended on the basis of properly explaining why they're legally insufficient to the powers you want the police to have.

 

Which in a country that's on an on-going crisis of police racism targeted specifically at minorities, particularly black citizens, doesn't seems like a good idea.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Maybe it's a silly law,  I mean it does sound pretty stupid that this bloke might escape conviction when caught red handed with a boot load of drugs. He had no drivers license, no fingerprint scan results, claims he can't speak English and only has a paper visa and car registration, this is sufficient grounds for a vehicle search in most countries.

Pretty much every country has 4th amendment like laws, which is at the heart of it to prevent unreasonable search and seizure not any. Police have a job to do and when your above a certain level of suspicion it is their duty to investigate.

 

Police still get it wrong and perfection is unobtainable however making law enforcement obtusely hard through complicated procedures does not actually help or prevent misconduct and actually makes police officers get confused as to what are the correct procedures lowering the effectiveness of the police force.

 

More rules, guidelines, limits etc doesn't really do much to increase civil liberty. What actually helps is addressing the actual problem which is a real independent well funded police conduct authority which actively investigates issues without being prompted that will over time lead to a culture change within the police force itself. We had a big problem with police misconduct in the 70's and 80's and that is exactly how we addressed it, there are a few very well documented cases of such misconduct in very high profile cases. It took 10 to 15 years to fix and I can't really see how it can be done any faster properly that will last.

 

Using Google translate was a stupid thing to do however given the situation you mention search without consent is justified, heck here simply not having a drivers license on you is enough by itself plus an immediate fine.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

Which in a country that's on an on-going crisis of police racism targeted specifically at minorities, particularly black citizens, doesn't seems like a good idea.

You've gotta stop getting your news from the lame stream media.  There is no "on-going crisis", except for that manufactured by the media.  They take a few isolated molehills and turn them into full blown mountains.  Are there incidents of racism?  Yes.  Should they be stopped?  Yes.  Is it as wide spread as the media tries to portray it?  Not even close.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

"this is sufficient grounds for a vehicle search in most countries." - I alluded to this early on: yes it is. It still means is inherently invasive and wrong on most countries. Yes it is possible most countries get it wrong, we certainly do get it wrong too.

whether it's wrong or not comes down to it is effectiveness and use.  Do people get searched randomly in Australia?  no, however if you're speeding away from a bank robbery in a car that matches the description of the assailants then yes you will.  The issue here is that people fail to understand the the term "reasonable cause" In other words if the police want the evidence to stick after the fact hey have to prove there was reasonable cause to search the car, you don't have reasonable cause if they are being pulled over for something specific (speeding/random drug test), They do if happen to be behaving suspiciously in an area know for certain crimes and you fail to communicate adequately.

 

Quote

If your standard is 'Can I find others who do it worst?'

Not my standard,  my example is other countries that do it better therefore  if someone with boot load of drugs gets off maybe the US is doing it wrong.

Quote

Which in a country that's on an on-going crisis of police racism targeted specifically at minorities, particularly black citizens, doesn't seems like a good idea.

Racist and unethical police is a different issue.  It doesn't matter what the law is if your police are corrupt. 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Pretty much every country has 4th amendment like laws, which is at the heart of it to prevent unreasonable search and seizure not any. Police have a job to do and when your above a certain level of suspicion it is their duty to investigate.

I think you'll find most countries allow police to search a vehicle/person when the occasion provides adequate reasonable suspicion.

https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/police-powers-and-your-rights/getting-searched

I think we actually agree though, on re-reading your post your not actually saying the police don't have these powers as they do, but only under certain provisions.

Quote

Police still get it wrong and perfection is unobtainable however making law enforcement obtusely hard through complicated procedures does not actually help or prevent misconduct and actually makes police officers get confused as to what are the correct procedures lowering the effectiveness of the police force.

 

Absolutely they do, but there is no harm in getting it wrong and searching an innocent person,  only criminals carrying illegal drugs and weapons get caught out by such provisions.

Quote

More rules, guidelines, limits etc doesn't really do much to increase civil liberty. What actually helps is addressing the actual problem which is a real independent well funded police conduct authority which actively investigates issues without being prompted that will over time lead to a culture change within the police force itself. We had a big problem with police misconduct in the 70's and 80's and that is exactly how we addressed it, there are a few very well documented cases of such misconduct in very high profile cases. It took 10 to 15 years to fix and I can't really see how it can be done any faster properly that will last.

 

Every country has issues with their police force at some point in time,  People are people,  but I point you the fact that Australia has had no such issues with corrupt police running around harassing random innocent people with unethical searches.

Quote

Using Google translate was a stupid thing to do however given the situation you mention search without consent is justified, heck here simply not having a drivers license on you is enough by itself plus an immediate fine.

exactly, the google translate thing only highlights an issue with the police when they are bound by the 4th amendment.  Whether we agree with the 4th amendment or not one fact we can't escape is that a drug mule might get of because of it.

[Guest]

On 6/16/2018 at 11:29 PM, Trik'Stari said:

I have some questions.

 

Was he here legally? Was he just visiting as a "tourist" or what?

If he was here as a legally documented immigrant, why were English language classes not provided for him if not in fact mandatory?

 

 

While this outcome was honestly a correct one. This shouldn't have happened. If I was going to go to somewhere, even just to visit, let's say Japan, I would likely try and learn some rudimentary Japanese. At least enough to be able to interact with their police in an emergency. I wouldn't automatically expect them to understand my language. This is why we need a set unified language. This is why most countries have one.

 

 

At least the court system got it right this time.

Yes. A man found with a large stash of methamphetamine and cocaine was let off and the court got it right. Definitely the correct outcome. This poor tourist was just trying to enjoy his business holiday.  

[SpaceGhostC2C]

 

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

Maybe it's a silly law,  I mean it does sound pretty stupid that this bloke might escape conviction when caught red handed with a boot load of drugs. He had no drivers license, no fingerprint scan results, claims he can't speak English and only has a paper visa and car registration, this is sufficient grounds for a vehicle search in most countries.

 

It's mot a silly law, but a fundamental principle of any state upholding rule of law, known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree": for laws, rights, and constitutional guarantees to have any meaning, they cannot be violated on a "end justifies the means" basis. The person was not caught red handed: the police found nothing, broke a few laws, and then found something. That kind of evidence is never admitted in court in any country not ruled by pure arbitrariness. 

Whether it would be legal in a different country is irrelevant for the case. Just like it may be legal to torture people to obtain information on criminal activities (did someone use Israel as an example above? ), and you may catch actual criminals doing so, that's still obviously going to be rejected in court.

The fact that this made it to the news is all about the Google translate anecdote, if they had just proceeded to search the car it would have been equally dismissed in court without the media noticing it.

 

But reading other people's messages in this thread made me realize that maybe it's good this came out as a reminder that Dirty Harry is a movie, not a documentary 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

 

 

It's mot a silly law, but a fundamental principle of any state upholding rule of law, known as "the fruit of the poisonous tree": for laws, rights, and constitutional guarantees to have any meaning, they cannot be violated on a "end justifies the means" basis.

Who said anything about the end justifying the means?
 That was never the mentality nor the message I made. I referred to sufficient suspicion, which is legally defined in many countries in provisions for a warrant less search.

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

The person was not caught red handed: the police found nothing, broke a few laws, and then found something. That kind of evidence is never admitted in court in any country not ruled by pure arbitrariness. 

they found a boot load of drugs, that is being caught red handed.  whether they had legal right to find them or not doesn't mean  you can pretend that a crime was not committed, all you can claim here is that a protocol was mishandled.

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Whether it would be legal in a different country is irrelevant for the case.

 

Not when I am questioning whether the 4th amendment is necessary as an absolute or not. I am not claiming the course of the case specifically as it plays out pragmatically under US law is illegal, but I am questioning whether it should be illegal or whether a reasonable cause provision should be permitted.

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Just like it may be legal to torture people to obtain information on criminal activities (did someone use Israel as an example above? ), and you may catch actual criminals doing so, that's still obviously going to be rejected in court.

I guess if I was actually arguing that the police should do what they want without provision or repercussion then that would be a fair rebuttal.

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The fact that this made it to the news is all about the Google translate anecdote, if they had just proceeded to search the car it would have been equally dismissed in court without the media noticing it.

it also made it to the news because there was a failure in the adherence to protection of 4th amendment rights that has lead to a drug mule possibly escaping conviction.

 

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

But reading other people's messages in this thread made me realize that maybe it's good this came out as a reminder that Dirty Harry is a movie, not a documentary 

never seen that movie, but I am always loath to reference movies to support an ideological stance on legal issues.

[ARikozuM]

Should have used Siri... 

Spoiler

I'm kidding. 

 

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not when I am questioning whether the 4th amendment is necessary as an absolute or not. I am not claiming the course of the case specifically as it plays out pragmatically under US law is illegal, but I am questioning whether it should be illegal or whether a reasonable cause provision should be permitted.

The 4th amendment is incredibly important because it protects innocent people.

It is easy to look at a case like this and go "the 4th amendment protects criminals!" but the fact of the matter is that it protects innocent people too.

 

I used to think it was unnecessary and just protected criminals too, until I listened to this speech on the subject:

 

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The 4th amendment is incredibly important because it protects innocent people.

It is easy to look at a case like this and go "the 4th amendment protects criminals!" but the fact of the matter is that it protects innocent people too.

 

I used to think it was unnecessary and just protected criminals too, until I listened to this speech on the subject:

 

Never said it didn't, I just said it doesn't have to be absolute without provisions. And I've twice now qualified what those provisions are and how they are implemented without detriment or abuse of the innocent.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

(...)

I think there are two discussions here: one I'm not having with you about the judge's decision. My stance is that the judge did the obvious right thing given the current laws in the US, which apparently is not shared by other users in this thread.

 

There is a separate discussion you are interested in: whether the laws should be different so the outcome of cases like this would be different. I think I disagree with you on the second discussion, but my post mostly provided arguments for the first discussion.

The reason I quoted you, and the only way I contributed to this second issue, was to emphasize that rejecting evidence obtained through wrong means is a rather general principle, and a necessary one to ensure a fair trial.

When and how police searches of houses and cars are allowed is yet another discussion, since illegal searches are just one particular example of the general rule about admissible evidence.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The reason I quoted you, and the only way I contributed to this second issue, was to emphasize that rejecting evidence obtained through wrong means is a rather general principle, and a necessary one to ensure a fair trial.

When and how police searches of houses and cars are allowed is yet another discussion, since illegal searches are just one particular example of the general rule about admissible evidence.

There in lies the issue,  Because I never for an instant suggested the judges decision was wrong. it's their job to uphold the law to the letter where prudent.  However My questioning of the 4th amendment and examples of such provisioning exemplifies that a warrant-less or permission-less search doesn't lead to an unfair trial.  As Leadeater has pointed out most countries have a 4th amendment style common law policy. However many countries permit police to carry out a search where reasonable cause is evident.  If they fail to convince the judge they had reasonable cause then any evidence they find is dismissed.  The end result is the same except criminals get caught more often and the innocent are merely inconvenienced.  

 

EDIT: and before anyone says it, if a cop is going to try and plant evidence on you then claim they had reasonable cause, then you are already fucked and this law nor the 4th amendment is going to protect you. Because nothing protects you from corrupt police.  

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The reason I quoted you, and the only way I contributed to this second issue, was to emphasize that rejecting evidence obtained through wrong means is a rather general principle, and a necessary one to ensure a fair trial.

When and how police searches of houses and cars are allowed is yet another discussion, since illegal searches are just one particular example of the general rule about admissible evidence.

Note: I have not read the entire conversation so I may be misunderstanding the arguments given.

 

I think it makes sense to throw out evidence that were obtained through illegal means (as in, searching something without a warrant when one is needed).

It is an easy way to force police and other agencies to follow the law. If they can just disregard the law because the outcome is the same as following it, why follow it at all? It is especially bad since them not following the law can have serious consequences on the individual that has their rights violated. In this case that did not happen, but that does not mean the innocent individual always is just "a little inconvenient" by the police breaking the law.

[Derangel]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Never said it didn't, I just said it doesn't have to be absolute without provisions. And I've twice now qualified what those provisions are and how they are implemented without detriment or abuse of the innocent.

There are provisions. Police have a reasonable suspicion clause. If a person is weaving all over the road the police have a right to pull them over, ask them to get out of their car, and administer a test to make sure they are not drunk or high. If an officer hears what sounds like a violent struggle or someone calling for help, they can enter a dwelling without a warrant. If the officer smells illegal drugs being used or grown they can search without a warrant, and so on. However, it is not carte blanche to search anything and everything. If an officer thinks there are drugs in a building or vehicle, when there are no other signs of drugs present, they do not have the right to search it without a warrant or permission from the owner. That permission must also be given in a manner that makes it clear the other party is aware that they have the right to refuse.

[Jtalk4456]

On 6/16/2018 at 6:51 PM, Trik'Stari said:

1. We need to have a basic national language to ensure everyone is able to communicate with everyone else. Not doing so is foolishness and only leads to division between the different segments of society.

2. Having to learn a new national language doesn't result in you somehow losing your cultural heritage. Nor is it racist. Nor is it oppressive. It is ensuring that everyone has the basic communication skills in order to effectively communicate in times of crisis.

3. Now I know someone will bring up sign language for the deaf. The difference there being that they possibly are not physically capable of speech. Or at least speech that others can understand and communicate back. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between a physical disability and just not wanting to dedicate the time to learning a new language.

4. I already live here. I don't come to your house and or country and demand you adopt my rules. So don't expect me to adopt yours. (and please stop with the not-native "native americans" argument. Natural selection is what it is. No nation or ethnicity has clean hands if your going to take it to this childish level of argument that cannot let go of history. You have to remember history, but to some extent you have to let it go)

5. The majority of America speaks english. It is more cost effective and less time consuming on the whole, to require people who immigrate legally, to learn to speak english.

6. The only real reason some of you might be against this is because Party A is for it and you might be part of Party B or Party C. Stop being bipartisan and start actually thinking for yourselves. There is no good reason for not having a national language, and not requiring new immigrants to learn that language, whilst providing the means to learn that language for free.

1. Agree to disagree. I think we've done just fine without forcing people to have a national language. 

2. What if the person has trouble learning the language? hat if they can't afford to learn the language? I'm not saying it's oppression to ask them to learn english, but it IS oppression to FORCE it. We are the land of the free, we should be able to speak whatever language we want without being judged. Also I think it's foolish to assume that by saying english is the national language people of different cultures will just drop their lives and start attending esl classes regardless of economic situation, multiple jobs, taking care of children, etc. If it benefitted them enough to justify the sacrifices they have to make, they would already be doing it, which a good many are, thanks to free ESL programs.

Again this just begs the question Why should it be forced? What will we gain as a country by making it forced vs mandatory?

3. ?????? No one was going to bring that up...That wouldn't even begin to make sense

4. The reason the Native American is brought up is that you're reasoning out that since they are coming to our country they should learn our language. This argument doesn't hold up. And yes, that's in our history but also it's in our present.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/13-native-american-issues_us_55b7d801e4b0074ba5a6869c

Since we took their land without permission and killed almost all of them to the point where it is easily called genocide, I think forgetting the atrocities we have done and ARE currently doing to the original owners of this land is disrespectful. Now i'm not so ignorant as to think or hope that we can go back to the native americans owning what they originally owned, but I have an ethical problem with continuing to force our culture on others. We've already taken their land, their livelihoods, why do we have to now force them to speak english too? I'm not saying immigrants shouldn't learn the language, I'm saying there is no reason for it to be legally enforced. reference back to alot of answer 2

5. While you are true that it is more efficient and easy for the minority to speak the majority language, you still fail to reason why it should be forced.

6. I am against this for ethical reasons, and I have no party affiliation, I'm a middle income white male. While partisan beliefs certainly influence some, please don't make large accusations that everyone with a different view from yours is politically driven and has no interest in facts or reasoning. As for your last statement, While I still see no reason for it to be forced (which would be a massive policy and enforcement change that would cost a heaping ton of money (to give you a good reason), I would fully support the government providing free ESL classes for immigrants at any stage, not just in the process of coming in

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Derangel said:

There are provisions. Police have a reasonable suspicion clause. If a person is weaving all over the road the police have a right to pull them over, ask them to get out of their car, and administer a test to make sure they are not drunk or high. If an officer hears what sounds like a violent struggle or someone calling for help, they can enter a dwelling without a warrant. If the officer smells illegal drugs being used or grown they can search without a warrant, and so on. However, it is not carte blanche to search anything and everything. If an officer thinks there are drugs in a building or vehicle, when there are no other signs of drugs present, they do not have the right to search it without a warrant or permission from the owner. That permission must also be given in a manner that makes it clear the other party is aware that they have the right to refuse.

I'm not sure how that effects what I said.   I did clearly point out the provisions are well defined (meaning they are not "carte blanche") and I also explained how without reasonable cause police have not right to search.

 

EDIT: also entering a house because they here a struggle or call for help is not the same as carrying our a search for evidence or contraband, it is a response to a need.

 

[spartaman64]

There is a very easy way to determine that he didn't understand the cop. He had drugs in the car. Why would he agree to a search knowingly. 

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

There is a very easy way to determine that he didn't understand the cop. He had drugs in the car. Why would he agree to a search knowingly. 

Ah yes, but using that defense would mean admitting to carrying drugs.  An admission is just as hard to defend as being caught.