A recent ruling from a Florida appellate court in the case of Ruiz v. State questioned the honest of the cops and the independence of the judge in a dispute over whether a defendant had given consent to a search of his home. The appellate court all but said the law enforcement officers committed perjury, and stressed the importance of trial court judges not becoming “rubber stamps” for whatever the cops claim is the truth.
Despite the appellate court making it obvious they thought the cops lied and that the judge was just letting them get away with it for the convenience of getting a conviction, the appellate court found it had to affirm the trial court’s ruling based on it’s own rules of procedure. So in a sense, the appellate court made itself a reluctant rubber stamp too, even after commenting that this search would have been suppressed if it happened 25 years ago. But after all, what can an appellate court do but continue down the path of precedent that lets trial judges do anything they want?
To learn more about this case, read Are Judges Helping Cops Commit Perjury about Consent Searches on the About.com Law Practice Management blog.
Yes, I realize this makes two blog posts in a row which were really designed to get you to read a post I wrote on a different blog site. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you. I promise to make it up soon with some new snarky and rude material for this site.
Related articles
- Are Judges Helping Cops Commit Perjury about Consent Searches? (law.about.com)
- Police Officers Committing Perjury in Testimony About Consent Searches? (volokh.com)
- When Cops Lie in Court, Do Trial Judges and Appellate Courts Let Them Get Away With It? (williampfeifer.com)
