The Re-Education of Adam Liptak
Simple Justice:
Taking extreme liberty with spatial, temporal and stark reality, I post about my chat yesterday with New York Times’ Legal Smeagle Adam Liptak. I’ve had my issues with Adam in the past, and since he’s slated to be the voice of the Supreme Court for a fairly credible newspaper, I couldn’t ignore it any longer. Not after Adam wrote this article.
After brief pleasantries, we settled down to our drink. I voted for a beer, but Adam insisted on green tea due to its herbal healing qualities and the possibility that it would induce the growth of hair.
Adam, there are way too many people reading your articles for you to play so fast and loose with the truth…
What! I don’t do that. I would never do that.
Adam, you wrote
The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence.
What were you thinking?
But that’s true. It’s true, true, true.
Not only is it not true, but it’s completely misleading. First, the exclusionary rule doesn’t come into play because of “police misconduct,” but because the police have violated a defendant’s rights under the 4th Amendment.
It’s the same thing.
Not even close. Misconduct encompasses a huge variety of wrongs, from a good beating to lying under oath. You remember “testilying”, don’t you?
I never believe it happened, by the way. It’s just another liberal plot.
Sigh. Let’s save that one for another day and focus for the moment on this one article. Are we clear that it’s not about “police misconduct?”
I suppose, maybe.
Now let’s talk about the word “some”. You stuck that in there to suggest that no…