His Indolence Speaks

Here's a little something that may be of interest to those following this year's NC Supreme Court elections. Mr. Gregory Lee Nowell is complaining on local Roanoke Rapids bulletin board 27870.com of the consequences (home and all possessions sold off, $40,000 missing) of a conviction for drug dealing in 1999: he blames now-Major Strickland and Sheriff Frazier and the Halifax County Sheriff's office in general for the raid and losses, since the conviction was reversed on appeal (details here) when the warrantless search and seizure were ruled illegal. I am soooo gonna make local attorney (and new Republican) Sammy D. Webb read this:

Mr. Nowell, you may have a case if you can prove your house was seized on the basis of a conviction that was later overturned. And we all have the right to know what became of the $40K. You're absolutely right that we can't call you a felon based on 99 CRS 001922-25 (but you weren't acquitted, just not retried, and the Appeals Court wasn't unanimous in finding the search illegal: Judge John wrote a fine dissent and at least I agree with him, for whatever my non-lawyerly opinion matters. By the way, everyone, the vote would've gone the other way and Mr. Nowell would probably be in jail today if then-Judge Timmons-Goodson had voted with Judge John instead of with Judge Greene. Judge Timmons-Goodson has since been appointed to the NC Supreme Court by Governor Easley, to replace Judge Parker whom he elevated to Chief Justice when Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake retired in January. That means that both Chief Justice Parker and Justice Timmons-Goodson have to stand for election November 7th, 2006. Think your vote doesn't matter? Patriots are still dying to uphold your voice in interpreting the Fourth Amendment.)

It sounds to me -

Strickland informed Stanfield that he had had “numerous dealings” with Nowell in the past. As part of those “dealing,” Strickland and Nowell would schedule a delivery of marijuana, and Strickland would transport the marijuana to Nowell's residence. After Strickland arrived at Nowell's residence, Nowell usually “would have to go get the rest of the money and leave [Strickland] there until . . . Nowell would return with the money and the deal would be done in the selling of marijuana."

as if they have Strickland and probably Valles to squeeze for testimony and/or evidence to prove you maintained a dwelling for the purpose of dealing drugs, maybe even for a conspiracy charge. I dunno. Do you have more evidence as to the seizure?

As you can see throughout this thread, you may have a technicality of the law on your side, but precious little sympathy. The exclusionary rule is probably the number one reason for Americans' disgust with their legal system, heck, it is much of what MAKES it a legal system rather than a justice system. Too bad most people don't realize that the exclusionary rule is NOT prescribed by the Constitution, it is only the REMEDY the Miranda court prescribed to prevent illegal searches and seizures, and thus it could be replaced by something like an admonition to Congress that illegal searches were taking place and that such must be PUNISHED directly on law enforcement officers to prevent the practice, or the exclusionary rule would have to be applied as the only remedy available to the Judicial branch. Then we would've punished then-Lt. Stanfield with, say, four hours community service studying search and seizure precedents and giving a speech on the subject, invite deputies from neighboring counties, and so forth, it shouldn't be an embarassment to learn a lesson and show the lesson to others. Only if illegal searches continued to be a problem would stiffer punishments for law enforcement officers or reinstatement of the exclusionary rule be necessary.

That's my Constitutional Law tirade for this month. And GAWSPC or whatever that six-capital-letter handle was a dozen or so posts back: well said! and wear your uniform with pride, people you may never even meet stand a little straighter when we see you in it.