This ruling is in direct exception/negation to the exclusionary rule.
"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used “when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements.”
Described here being a mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest.
So by corollary as of Jan 15 2008 this is a perfectly reasonable situation: Cop sees someone he doesnt like, pulls them over, “mistakes” them for a criminal on warrant, searches them unreasonably and locks em up if he “finds” something on them or in their car.
That resembles a more extreme Block-ish perspective on the matter. In a free society, the owner of the road would simply demand collateral or ban you from using that road. If you live in a state, does that make it okay for the state to make any such rules? The “you’re free to leave” isn’t a great answer. That’s because there is no previous explicit agreement to the laws. Even if you trace it way back into history, there’s no reason why the state would own anything or be able to make such demands.
Otherwise, we could say we already live in anarcho-capitalism, e.g. we voluntarily agree to follow such rules.
I’m thinking of opening a new topic to discuss this more thoroughly.
Also more “criminals” are found with drugs or guns, those in a free society would be alright, if ther owner of the road did not approve of them he could ban them from the road, and if the owner searched people to much no one would use the road.