Admissible evidence

[His Noodly Appendage]

This might not be the place to debate views, but to briefly do so anyway:


No genuine evidence, from whatever source, however obtained, shall be inadmissible in a court of law. However, improperly obtaining evidence in the first shall be grounds for anything from disciplinary procedures to criminal prosecution, both for the officers involved and their relevant superiors, with increasing severity for repeat or egregious violations.



What's to prevent police, or hired thugs for that matter, from breaking into one's home to "obtain" just about any evidence they want? Or to torture confessions or whatever out of a "suspect"?

Yes, as you say we could punish the cops later, in theory, but our civil rights to privacy and due process would be gone anyway.

Well, I'd hold that that's a case of tu quoque. You have a counterclaim, sure - but that doesn't mean that you don't deserve the jail time for what you did. The law should work on what is actually true, and work on the behavioural modification separately.

And I'd wager that the prospect of sharing a cell with the one they put away would put a crimp in even the most zealous cop's enthusiasm for fucking with due process...

[Pavlov's Dog]

And I'd wager that the prospect of sharing a cell with the one they put away would put a crimp in even the most zealous cop's enthusiasm for fucking with due process...

How much?

[Jaggers]

Well, I'd hold that that's a case of tu quoque. You have a counterclaim, sure - but that doesn't mean that you don't deserve the jail time for what you did. The law should work on what is actually true, and work on the behavioural modification separately.

And I'd wager that the prospect of sharing a cell with the one they put away would put a crimp in even the most zealous cop's enthusiasm for fucking with due process...This seems a bit ivory-towerish. Cops are reknowned for protecting their own. Under this rule, the issue of how the evidence was obtained is not even an issue in determing its admissability. Thus, practically speaking, I would be surprised if any cop ever suffers any serious risk of prosecution by illegally obtaining the evidence. Who has the incentive to even bring up the issue? Cops don't, since they have an unspoken agreement to protect each other. The accused doesn't, since the evidence is admissible even if it was illegally obtained.

[dancer_rnb]

Well, I'd hold that that's a case of tu quoque. You have a counterclaim, sure - but that doesn't mean that you don't deserve the jail time for what you did. The law should work on what is actually true, and work on the behavioural modification separately.

And I'd wager that the prospect of sharing a cell with the one they put away would put a crimp in even the most zealous cop's enthusiasm for fucking with due process...

So the cops bust into your home and find you have a half once of pot........

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, I'd hold that that's a case of tu quoque. You have a counterclaim, sure - but that doesn't mean that you don't deserve the jail time for what you did. The law should work on what is actually true, and work on the behavioural modification separately.

And I'd wager that the prospect of sharing a cell with the one they put away would put a crimp in even the most zealous cop's enthusiasm for fucking with due process...

So the cops bust into your home and find you have a half once of pot........

Yeah, then they charge you for your crime, and the same prosecutors, police force, etc. will prosecute the police who broke into your house to get them the evidence they needed to prosecute you.

[dancer_rnb]

Well, I'd hold that that's a case of tu quoque. You have a counterclaim, sure - but that doesn't mean that you don't deserve the jail time for what you did. The law should work on what is actually true, and work on the behavioural modification separately.

And I'd wager that the prospect of sharing a cell with the one they put away would put a crimp in even the most zealous cop's enthusiasm for fucking with due process...

So the cops bust into your home and find you have a half once of pot........

Yeah, then they charge you for your crime, and the same prosecutors, police force, etc. will prosecute the police who broke into your house to get them the evidence they needed to prosecute you.

Actually pot should never have been criminalized. Maybe if that weren't the case, I would agree with you.

[Pavlov's Dog]

So the cops bust into your home and find you have a half once of pot........

Yeah, then they charge you for your crime, and the same prosecutors, police force, etc. will prosecute the police who broke into your house to get them the evidence they needed to prosecute you.

Actually pot should never have been criminalized. Maybe if that weren't the case, I would agree with you.

I wasn't being serious. It is insane to think that threatening the police with prosecution for illegally obtaining evidence is the best way to prevent them from violating your rights and illegally obtaining evidence.

[nygreenguy]

I wasn't being serious. It is insane to think that threatening the police with prosecution for illegally obtaining evidence is the best way to prevent them from violating your rights and illegally obtaining evidence.

Im glad i read further down, I thought you were serious.

I do agree, but Im privileged to know more about what goes in as my partner is a lawyer and worked in criminal defense.

In many cases, the truth is irrelevant. All that matters is putting someone away. Cops lie, plant evidence and break the law and violate peoples rights all of the time and nothing happens.

I think its a bit naive to think that they would ever be persecuted for doing something illegal like planting evidence.

[Oolon Colluphid]

In many cases, the truth is irrelevant. All that matters is putting someone away. Cops lie, plant evidence and break the law and violate peoples rights all of the time and nothing happens.
Is that really true, or have we all been watching too much of The Shield? I've no doubt it happens, but isn't actually pretty damned rare?

I guess it may depend on if you're black or not. :dunno:

[Ray Moscow]

^^ The Guildford Four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four)

[His Noodly Appendage]

Well, if the evidence gets ruled inadmissible, there's three quarters of the case for the prosecution...

[Oolon Colluphid]

^^ The Guildford Four (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four)

True, but that was 1975. Just a little before PACE, eh?

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, I hope things have improved a bit since then. The incident did come to mind, though, since I live nearby.

[Bright Life]

If authorities are allowed to jump in and search without probable cause, what's to say that they won't plant evidence? Honestly, without probable cause, why are they going in anyway?

[nygreenguy]

Is that really true, or have we all been watching too much of The Shield? I've no doubt it happens, but isn't actually pretty damned rare?

I guess it may depend on if you're black or not. :dunno:

Well, my partner has worked in criminal defense and it doesnt seem that rare.

[His Noodly Appendage]

BL: I'm proposing that it be considered only slightly less-worse than bribery - someone gets suspended, fired or jailed for it, every time. How the hell is that 'allowed to'?

My only point is that tu quoque is a fallacious rebuttal. However illegally obtained, evidence of a crime is still evidence of a crime, and it strikes me as perverse that it should not be treated as such.

Convicting criminals and preventing police corruption are two separate issues - and IMHO should be dealt with separately.

[seebs]

BL: I'm proposing that it be considered only slightly less-worse than bribery - someone gets suspended, fired or jailed for it, every time. How the hell is that 'allowed to'?

My only point is that tu quoque is a fallacious rebuttal. However illegally obtained, evidence of a crime is still evidence of a crime, and it strikes me as perverse that it should not be treated as such.

Convicting criminals and preventing police corruption are two separate issues - and IMHO should be dealt with separately.

If police, prosecutors, etcetera, did not have job performance evaluated in any way, I'd agree.

As is, the desire to prove something becomes a temptation to problematic behaviors, and we already have no real way to enforce laws against such things. The solution of simply declaring that such evidence *cannot help you* seems to have worked wonders.

In short, it's working. It's not ideal, but it works better than the other alternatives currently on offer.

[Meathead]

Admitting all unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal prosecutions flies in the face of the 4th Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

As for the threat of criminal prosecution, that threat has already existed for many years. Moreover, there's the laundry list of problems associated with that supposed method of deterrence, e.g., police looking after their own, prosecutors protecting the police, local juries looking after their own, etc.

Of course, there's also the threat of civil liability, but those type of lawsuits have been available for many years as well. And similar problems exist for that supposed method of deterrence as well, e.g., favoritism for police, juries favoring local authorities, lack of sympathy for plaintiffs who may be regarded as disreputable defendants, etc.

So...currently, we have the threat of criminal prosecution, threat of civil liability and the exclusionary rule all working together. And we still see police misconduct (as evidenced by the plethora of lawsuits filed against the police every year for police misconduct, which includes constitutional violations). Against that backdrop, how is eliminating one of the methods for deterring police misconduct, i.e., the exclusionary rule, supposed to produce better results?

[Goldie]

Ah! The voice of reason.
Hello, Meathead!
*heavy sigh*

[Bright Life]

BL: I'm proposing that it be considered only slightly less-worse than bribery - someone gets suspended, fired or jailed for it, every time. How the hell is that 'allowed to'?

My only point is that tu quoque is a fallacious rebuttal. However illegally obtained, evidence of a crime is still evidence of a crime, and it strikes me as perverse that it should not be treated as such.

Convicting criminals and preventing police corruption are two separate issues - and IMHO should be dealt with separately.


By "allowed," I mean, allowing them to search for evidence without legal authority, i.e. here in the U.S....
Admitting all unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal prosecutions flies in the face of the 4th Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Evidence being disallowed as result of illegal discovery insures that authorities will endeavor to respect the rights of all citizens.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Evidence being disallowed as result of illegal discovery insures that authorities will endeavor to respect the rights of all citizens.

That's the idea. At the very least it makes them slightly more careful about violating rights.

[Meathead]

Ah! The voice of reason.
Hello, Meathead!
*heavy sigh*

You're embarrassing me (not that I want you to stop, of course...just a point of information is all). ;)

[hecaterin]

Of course, we don't have a 4th amendment in Oz. :P

My first thought was that Noodles is, as often, generally right, but too idealistic. Police protect their own, as we well know. And make things up. Look up "verballing" for Aussie examples.

But on second thought, if judges could only accept illegally gathered evidence in the case that the illegal action had already been judged - ie, tried and the culprit found guilty - that would be pretty cool. The problem in accepting illegal evidence is not with the evidence per se, but with the fact that it does provide a strong incentive to the police to break the law. Do your job in a sloppy, high handed, illegal way, get extra convictions, get promoted, destroy community trust, violate human rights, yah whatever, blah blah blah.

Of course, the most idealistic of cops would be prepared to lose their job and go to jail for a few months to put away Mr Big. Wouldn't they? That's just so Hollywood.