Purse snatcher's cross dressing defense dressed down

NY Post Editorial:

Only in New York would a judge think it perfectly natural for a man with a heavy beard to be rifling through a purse - and to toss out criminal charges against him on the grounds that cops had no reason to think it suspicious.

That's what Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Yates did in a 2004 case against Stephen Lomiller. Fortunately, a panel of four state appellate judges on Tuesday nixed the ruling, striking a blow for sanity.

Lomiller was nabbed for possession of stolen property when cops noticed him anxiously sifting through an expensive shoulder bag on Second Avenue and 28th Street. He argued that cops should never have questioned him because it's common for transgender men to carry purses. Never mind that he hadn't shaved on the day of his arrest.

Astonishingly, Yates bought that claim. He wrote that seeing someone with Lomiller's description "holding and looking inside a handbag is not something that justifies focused inquiry," because if that were the case, "the police could make the same approach to a vast number of people in that area of Manhattan."

Huh? Surely not even wacky Gotham can claim a "vast number" of men - transgender or otherwise - rifling through purses while also sporting heavy beards.

...

Liberals can be so entertaining sometimes. What is probable cause to most rational human beings is trans gender discrimination to some liberals.

This case also points out the ridiculousness of the exclusionary rule. Excluding relevant evidence of guilt because of the nature of the way it was obtained is wrong and hurts society and respect for the law. If judges think that the police were wrong or abusive, let that evidence also be presented to the jury so that they can weigh that along with the evidence of guilt in coming to a verdict.