Editing 78-05-A3 (section)

= Crime =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Several weeks ago the press routinely carried a story about a United States
Supreme court decision that goes a long way toward explaining why the "bad guys"
may be winning in the war on crime.

Out in Rolla Missouri a state patrolman saw an unkempt stranger with no luggage
of any kind trying to hitchhike his way west on an Intrastate highway. Patrolman
Herbert J. Hoffman went on his way without pausing. But when he saw the same man
an hour later, this time three miles away trying to hitch a ride south on a local
highway he became suspicious enough to stop and ask for the man's I.D.

While the hitchhiker, Thomas Carl Jones, sat in the patrol car Hoffman made
a radio check and learned that Jones was wanted in Pennsylvania for the theft of
a revolver. Pennsylvania authorities also wanted him for questioning in the murder
of his aunt (he was later charged with that crime) Hoffman had already taken
possession of a .38 caliber revolver so, all-in-all, it looked like a good bit of
police work had resulted from his alertness.

A Pennsylvania court refused to allow the gun or statements Jones had made to
Patrolman Hoffman to be introduced as evidence. The judge said the patrolman
didn't have "probable cause" to suspect Jones of criminal activity. He further
ruled that even though Jones had only been detained and had talked voluntarily to
Hoffman, the patrolmans uniformed presence constituted authority and force.
The District Attorney said that the gun and the voluntary and the voluntary statements
made by Jones had been the critical evidence he was counting on. The judge's
decision was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme court
refused to review it. According to the District Attorney it is unlikely that Jones
will be prosecuted for the murder of his aunt.

This is another one of those "exclusionary rule" cases. An arresting officer
is held to be in technical violation of someone's constitutional rights, therefore
no evidence found by him can be used in court. It is so contrary to common sense that
officers have complained if they stopped a man for running a red light and found a
bleeding body in the rear seat they could still only charge the man with a traffic
violation.

We tried to get a solution to this "exclusionary rule" in California while I
was Governor but the trial lawyers association and a permissive legislature blocked
action.

We proposed that in cases of technical violations by a law enforcement officer
the citizen be allowed to sue the government body employing the officer at the
governments expense but that any evidence found by the officer be admissible in
court. Not perfect, but it would give protection to the citizen unjustly hassled
by law enforcement at the same time that it kept the courts from turning the
someone obviously guilty back out on the streets.

Personally, I think Patrolman Hoffman of Montana did just what he should have done. 

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/03/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-281]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>