Exclusionary Rule

[Caine]

What do you mean pbffft? That evidence could be crucial in the prosecution's ability to sentence a GUILTY criminal, someone who could, after release, continue doing such horrendous acts! You value your right not be bothered for a few minutes over your right to protect your life? I don't understand! Especially since the police officers can be prosecuted after illegally obtaining the evidence. Everybody wins!

The law is fine, the exclution of it is fine, and the punishment of illegally obtained information is fine.

Oh, and not everybody wins... the officer doesn't.
Especially the guy who is working as a part of a team who doesn't agree to arrest/charge the person with a crime after "accidentally" obtaining information in an illegal way.. for example, if I were to be a part of a team who entered that wrong apartment, didn't want to file charges because our info was obtained illegaly, my say didn't matter cause im just a rookie, and then I get punished for it.

There are hundreds of scenarios, and not enough time to write out laws for every one, so the rule is fine the way it is.

 

[Busta]

If they knew it was the wrong apartment, they shoudln't have entered.
If they found out it was the wrong apartment after entering, they had no right to file charges in the first place, and are just plain incompetant for not double checking to make sure they were at the right place.

The Police exist to serve and protect the people, not violate thier rights.

Now, as a person who hates drugs and drug manufacturers and users with a passion, I find it VERY unfortunate that the situation ended up like it did.
But, its no reason to take away more of our already diminishing privacy in this country.

Ya, I pretty much agree with you here.

 

[Hornburger]

The law is fine, the exclution of it is fine, and the punishment of illegally obtained information is fine.

Oh, and not everybody wins... the officer doesn't.
Especially the guy who is working as a part of a team who doesn't agree to arrest/charge the person with a crime after "accidentally" obtaining information in an illegal way.. for example, if I were to be a part of a team who entered that wrong apartment, didn't want to file charges because our info was obtained illegaly, my say didn't matter cause im just a rookie, and then I get punished for it.

There are hundreds of scenarios, and not enough time to write out laws for every one, so the rule is fine the way it is.

That's where the courts have to find out who wanted the search to happen, and who didn't.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Someone committing crimes and leaving the curtains open is fair game. A neighbor could have seen it and called the cops, thus if a cop sees the same thing himself, it's no different.

A couple of circumstances more interesting and challenging.

One:
A speeder is stopped for a ticket. The officer notices him acting nervous but is refused permission to search the vehicle. Not having probable cause to force a search, he does not, but never the less he detains the driver until a K-9 unit can be summoned and the dog, trained to react to drugs, sits down at his trunk.

The cops can now claim probable cause, gets the trunk open, and finds a couple kilos of cocaine.

Is this search legitimate, or does it violate the drivers freedom because of the extended detention is unlawful?

====

Two:
A random roadblock for DUI screening is established. A perfectly sober driver presumes the lights ahead are part of the ongoing construction in the neighborhood, and turns onto a side street to avoid a traffic jam.

Immediately he is pursued by a motorcycle officer and pulled over. The officer claims he saw a faulty taillight, can he have license, registration, and oh, have you been drinking? No ticket is issued in this case, but no taillight was out, either. (Up to this point, happened to me)

What if I'd had a hundred thousand dollars in a bag on the seat next to me and the cop searched it. Valid search?

 

[Caine]

That's where the courts have to find out who wanted the search to happen, and who didn't.

Well. That should actually be unnecessary.

The whole idea of allowing it is almost a secret way to condone the action in itself.
In my opinion, if the evidence were to be allowed, you would see a large increase in the number of illegally obtained evidence.

And thats not what we want.

 

[Hornburger]

Well. That should actually be unnecessary.

The whole idea of allowing it is almost a secret way to condone the action in itself.
In my opinion, if the evidence were to be allowed, you would see a large increase in the number of illegally obtained evidence.

And thats not what we want.

Yes, probably, but I guess it all depends on which right you place a higher value on. I just think that it is not completely giving up your right to privacy because the cops can still be prosecuted. But it's all subjective.

 

[Caine]

Someone committing crimes and leaving the curtains open is fair game. A neighbor could have seen it and called the cops, thus if a cop sees the same thing himself, it's no different.

A couple of circumstances more interesting and challenging.

One:
A speeder is stopped for a ticket. The officer notices him acting nervous but is refused permission to search the vehicle. Not having probable cause to force a search, he does not, but never the less he detains the driver until a K-9 unit can be summoned and the dog, trained to react to drugs, sits down at his trunk.

The cops can now claim probable cause, gets the trunk open, and finds a couple kilos of cocaine.

Is this search legitimate, or does it violate the drivers freedom because of the extended detention is unlawful?

====

Two:
A random roadblock for DUI screening is established. A perfectly sober driver presumes the lights ahead are part of the ongoing construction in the neighborhood, and turns onto a side street to avoid a traffic jam.

Immediately he is pursued by a motorcycle officer and pulled over. The officer claims he saw a faulty taillight, can he have license, registration, and oh, have you been drinking? No ticket is issued in this case, but no taillight was out, either. (Up to this point, happened to me)

What if I'd had a hundred thousand dollars in a bag on the seat next to me and the cop searched it. Valid search?

Scenario Two: No, because he had no real reason for pulling over the suspect in the first case, since no tail light was actually missing.

 

[Hornburger]

Someone committing crimes and leaving the curtains open is fair game. A neighbor could have seen it and called the cops, thus if a cop sees the same thing himself, it's no different.

A couple of circumstances more interesting and challenging.

One:
A speeder is stopped for a ticket. The officer notices him acting nervous but is refused permission to search the vehicle. Not having probable cause to force a search, he does not, but never the less he detains the driver until a K-9 unit can be summoned and the dog, trained to react to drugs, sits down at his trunk.

The cops can now claim probable cause, gets the trunk open, and finds a couple kilos of cocaine.

Is this search legitimate, or does it violate the drivers freedom because of the extended detention is unlawful?

====

Two:
A random roadblock for DUI screening is established. A perfectly sober driver presumes the lights ahead are part of the ongoing construction in the neighborhood, and turns onto a side street to avoid a traffic jam.

Immediately he is pursued by a motorcycle officer and pulled over. The officer claims he saw a faulty taillight, can he have license, registration, and oh, have you been drinking? No ticket is issued in this case, but no taillight was out, either. (Up to this point, happened to me)

What if I'd had a hundred thousand dollars in a bag on the seat next to me and the cop searched it. Valid search?

IMO-Case 1 would be unlawful because there was no probable cause and you can't keep the driver there for a lengthly amount of time.

Case 2-Not a valid search, you can't just go searching people's bags without probable cause.

 

[debate_junkie]

Someone committing crimes and leaving the curtains open is fair game. A neighbor could have seen it and called the cops, thus if a cop sees the same thing himself, it's no different.

A couple of circumstances more interesting and challenging.

One:
A speeder is stopped for a ticket. The officer notices him acting nervous but is refused permission to search the vehicle. Not having probable cause to force a search, he does not, but never the less he detains the driver until a K-9 unit can be summoned and the dog, trained to react to drugs, sits down at his trunk.

The cops can now claim probable cause, gets the trunk open, and finds a couple kilos of cocaine.

Is this search legitimate, or does it violate the drivers freedom because of the extended detention is unlawful?

As much as I'd love to say it's legal (because it netted a drug bust) it is illegal to the highest extreme. The officers were refused a right to search the car. They should have issued the ticket, and been done with it.

====

Two:
A random roadblock for DUI screening is established. A perfectly sober driver presumes the lights ahead are part of the ongoing construction in the neighborhood, and turns onto a side street to avoid a traffic jam.

Immediately he is pursued by a motorcycle officer and pulled over. The officer claims he saw a faulty taillight, can he have license, registration, and oh, have you been drinking? No ticket is issued in this case, but no taillight was out, either. (Up to this point, happened to me)

What if I'd had a hundred thousand dollars in a bag on the seat next to me and the cop searched it. Valid search?

First of all, turning onto a side street is your legal right. I have an issue with them anyway, because in the end, I believe a DUI checkpoint is a fishing expedition. They don't net just drunk drivers. They will get for expired registration, plates, etc.... it's a way around the law, basically because offenses related to licenses, car registrations, insurance... are most of the times only things they would find if they pulled a vehicle over for another offense.

If the officer just grabbed the bag and started looking through it... illegal. If he asked and you refused permission to search, still illegal. Either way it goes... personal property is personal property. And unless they have probable cause, without illegal detentions and/or searches, they've got nothing.

 

[debate_junkie]

Yes, probably, but I guess it all depends on which right you place a higher value on. I just think that it is not completely giving up your right to privacy because the cops can still be prosecuted. But it's all subjective.

Allowing illegally obtained evidence to be used in court, IS giving permission for it to be done. And then prosecute the police officer who does it? WHOA man, talk about mixed signal's. In the end, police officers WOULDN'T get evidence they know they could get illegally, because they wouldn't want to lose their jobs.

Say your child grabs money out of your wallet? Would you tell the child " oh go ahead and keep it" and then turn around and ground them for stealing it in the first place?

 

[Hornburger]

Allowing illegally obtained evidence to be used in court, IS giving permission for it to be done. And then prosecute the police officer who does it? WHOA man, talk about mixed signal's. In the end, police officers WOULDN'T get evidence they know they could get illegally, because they wouldn't want to lose their jobs.

Say your child grabs money out of your wallet? Would you tell the child " oh go ahead and keep it" and then turn around and ground them for stealing it in the first place?

Yes I know, but you can't just let the police do ANYTHING they want. If they happen to find evidence, it's still evidence. Should they have looked for that evidence, no, but that evidence should be used. Does that make sense? Probably not lol. I'm just trying to balance out the rights of safety and privacy.

 

[Caine]

Yes I know, but you can't just let the police do ANYTHING they want. If they happen to find evidence, it's still evidence. Should they have looked for that evidence, no, but that evidence should be used. Does that make sense? Probably not lol. I'm just trying to balance out the rights of safety and privacy.

Like I stated earlier... such exceptions to the rule would cause this sort of thing to occur more often.

 

[debate_junkie]

Yes I know, but you can't just let the police do ANYTHING they want. If they happen to find evidence, it's still evidence. Should they have looked for that evidence, no, but that evidence should be used. Does that make sense? Probably not lol. I'm just trying to balance out the rights of safety and privacy.

Evidence in plain sight is one thing. Perfect example, I read a story about a guy a few weeks ago with huge pot plants in his house. Called the police stating someone was trying to break in. When the cops entered the home, they found the plants. Surprise suprise, dude got busted on the spot.

Same guy, same pot plants, only this time, no crime. Cops are tipped by a neighbor that this guy is growing plants, and they come and search the premises unbeknownst to the homeowner. That's illegal, period. They cannot just enter someone's home on hunches or tips.

You can't forgo the Constitution for safety, otherwise anarchy would ensue. Think about it. All semblences of privacy and protections from governmental abuse would be lost. Not a slope I wish to tread.

 

[Caine]

Evidence in plain sight is one thing. Perfect example, I read a story about a guy a few weeks ago with huge pot plants in his house. Called the police stating someone was trying to break in. When the cops entered the home, they found the plants. Surprise suprise, dude got busted on the spot.

Same guy, same pot plants, only this time, no crime. Cops are tipped by a neighbor that this guy is growing plants, and they come and search the premises unbeknownst to the homeowner. That's illegal, period. They cannot just enter someone's home on hunches or tips.

You can't forgo the Constitution for safety, otherwise anarchy would ensue. Think about it. All semblences of privacy and protections from governmental abuse would be lost. Not a slope I wish to tread.

This applies to Bush's illegal NSA Surveilance as well.

 

[Hornburger]

Evidence in plain sight is one thing. Perfect example, I read a story about a guy a few weeks ago with huge pot plants in his house. Called the police stating someone was trying to break in. When the cops entered the home, they found the plants. Surprise suprise, dude got busted on the spot.

Same guy, same pot plants, only this time, no crime. Cops are tipped by a neighbor that this guy is growing plants, and they come and search the premises unbeknownst to the homeowner. That's illegal, period. They cannot just enter someone's home on hunches or tips.

You can't forgo the Constitution for safety, otherwise anarchy would ensue. Think about it. All semblences of privacy and protections from governmental abuse would be lost. Not a slope I wish to tread.

I agree with you, that's why the officers would be prosecuted if they did something like that.

Like I stated earlier... such exceptions to the rule would cause this sort of thing to occur more often.

I don't know, I don't think the exceptions would occur so often because the officers would still be held accountable. Just the evidence would be used in courts.

 

[Caine]

I agree with you, that's why the officers would be prosecuted if they did something like that.


I don't know, I don't think the exceptions would occur so often because the officers would still be held accountable. Just the evidence would be used in courts.

Yes, and because the evidence would be used, the officers would probably act illegally to obtain evidence more often than they do (on a nationwide scale, it would not be very noticable in your community).

 

[Hornburger]

Yes, and because the evidence would be used, the officers would probably act illegally to obtain evidence more often than they do (on a nationwide scale, it would not be very noticable in your community).

I don't think so, most officers want to keep their jobs.

 

[Caine]

I don't think so, most officers want to keep their jobs.

Thats the thing, I think over time the punishment will start getting smaller and smaller. Very gradually, in ways that our privacy has gradually been getting violated by the Federal Government, gradually, gradually... little by little (except with the Patriot Act, that was a big'un), until we have the President himself authorizing surveilance without warrants.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't think so, most officers want to keep their jobs.

Exactly. My undertstanding of the exclusionary rule is to prevent abuse of the citizenry by civil authorities. No evidence in which the law was intentionally violated can or should be allowed; otherwise as many have pointed out, there is no incentive for law enforcement people to obey the law at all.

The problem is with the cases in which the police did their damndest to keep it legal, but there was some inadvertent minor technicality that allows a smart defense lawyer to get a case thrown out. I'm thinking of a situation some years ago following an armed robbery and shooting in which a witness saw the perp dump a gun into a private trash receptacle. Without a warrant, the police couldn't go through the trash and the city trash truck was coming. They waited patiently for the receptacle to be picked up and dumped and then grabbed the gun. The case was thrown out because the trash had not yet been intermingled with other trash and thus was not quite yet city property and was a violation of the trash receptacle owner's privacy.

In cases like this, there should be no exclusionary law as the police were doing their best to play by the rules.

 

[Caine]

Exactly. My undertstanding of the exclusionary rule is to prevent abuse of the citizenry by civil authorities. No evidence in which the law was intentionally violated can or should be allowed; otherwise as many have pointed out, there is no incentive for law enforcement people to obey the law at all.

The problem is with the cases in which the police did their damndest to keep it legal, but there was some inadvertent minor technicality that allows a smart defense lawyer to get a case thrown out. I'm thinking of a situation some years ago following an armed robbery and shooting in which a witness saw the perp dump a gun into a private trash receptacle. Without a warrant, the police couldn't go through the trash and the city trash truck was coming. They waited patiently for the receptacle to be picked up and dumped and then grabbed the gun. The case was thrown out because the trash had not yet been intermingled with other trash and thus was not quite yet city property and was a violation of the trash receptacle owner's privacy.

In cases like this, there should be no exclusionary law as the police were doing their best to play by the rules.

See, I don't disagree with the exclusionary rule here.... I disagree with the judge who claimed that because the trash had not mixed in yet, it was still a violation of the owner's privacy.

 

[Hornburger]

Exactly. My undertstanding of the exclusionary rule is to prevent abuse of the citizenry by civil authorities. No evidence in which the law was intentionally violated can or should be allowed; otherwise as many have pointed out, there is no incentive for law enforcement people to obey the law at all.

The problem is with the cases in which the police did their damndest to keep it legal, but there was some inadvertent minor technicality that allows a smart defense lawyer to get a case thrown out. I'm thinking of a situation some years ago following an armed robbery and shooting in which a witness saw the perp dump a gun into a private trash receptacle. Without a warrant, the police couldn't go through the trash and the city trash truck was coming. They waited patiently for the receptacle to be picked up and dumped and then grabbed the gun. The case was thrown out because the trash had not yet been intermingled with other trash and thus was not quite yet city property and was a violation of the trash receptacle owner's privacy.

In cases like this, there should be no exclusionary law as the police were doing their best to play by the rules.

There ya go-one who knows by experience

Thats the thing, I think over time the punishment will start getting smaller and smaller. Very gradually, in ways that our privacy has gradually been getting violated by the Federal Government, gradually, gradually... little by little (except with the Patriot Act, that was a big'un), until we have the President himself authorizing surveilance without warrants.

I don't think so, not if we don't allow that to happen.

And there wasn't always the exclusionary rule-so it's not like it's a sudden "leap" to a dictatorship or something.

But as for things like the Patriot Act...those kinds of things are ridiculous...get rid of them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

See, I don't disagree with the exclusionary rule here.... I disagree with the judge who claimed that because the trash had not mixed in yet, it was still a violation of the owner's privacy.

Still some years ago Congress passed a provision waiving certain aspects of the exclusionary rule in cases such as I cited where there was a minor violation that produced critical evidence but there was no intention to break the rules. The opponents to such amendment of the exclusionary rule howled to high heaven that the Constitutional was being overrun and the citizens would be assailed by jackbooted police thugs at every turn.

Sometime this country really is nuts.

 

[debate_junkie]

I agree with you, that's why the officers would be prosecuted if they did something like that.


I don't know, I don't think the exceptions would occur so often because the officers would still be held accountable. Just the evidence would be used in courts.

But how can you say the officers should be prosecuted if they obtain evidence illegally, but say the prosecutor should be able to use such evidence? That's what I'm not understanding. You're advocating anarchy within the criminal justice system, but demanding those who act anarchist should be punished.

You can't have it both ways. Either have the cake or eat it. Protections from rogue cops and over zealous district attorneys NEED to remain in check, otherwise you can kiss "innocent until proven guilty" goodbye. Why you ask? Well if they can use any evidence they obtain, they can kick in your front door whenever they please. and then what will you do?

 

[debate_junkie]

Exactly. My undertstanding of the exclusionary rule is to prevent abuse of the citizenry by civil authorities. No evidence in which the law was intentionally violated can or should be allowed; otherwise as many have pointed out, there is no incentive for law enforcement people to obey the law at all.

The problem is with the cases in which the police did their damndest to keep it legal, but there was some inadvertent minor technicality that allows a smart defense lawyer to get a case thrown out. I'm thinking of a situation some years ago following an armed robbery and shooting in which a witness saw the perp dump a gun into a private trash receptacle. Without a warrant, the police couldn't go through the trash and the city trash truck was coming. They waited patiently for the receptacle to be picked up and dumped and then grabbed the gun. The case was thrown out because the trash had not yet been intermingled with other trash and thus was not quite yet city property and was a violation of the trash receptacle owner's privacy.

In cases like this, there should be no exclusionary law as the police were doing their best to play by the rules.

They needed a warrant... having eyewitness testimony, they should have gotten one. Now, having said that... they also could have advised the company to leave those receptacle's be, as they are part of a criminal investigation, and 9.5 times out of 10, they would have never been touched. They did not do ALL they could have done. They simply jumped the gun instead of going through proper channels. If you allow them to ignore protocol once, do you think it'll stop there? I sure don't.

 

[Hornburger]

But how can you say the officers should be prosecuted if they obtain evidence illegally, but say the prosecutor should be able to use such evidence? That's what I'm not understanding. You're advocating anarchy within the criminal justice system, but demanding those who act anarchist should be punished.

Because you can't just encourage the officers to do whatever they please. But evidence is evidence. By letting that evidence go to waste, you could be letting a vicious criminal back into society. If we hold the officers responsible, yet allow the evidence, the officers will have an incentive not to do illegal searches AND we can convict the criminals.

You can't have it both ways. Either have the cake or eat it.

Sure I can, lol.

Protections from rogue cops and over zealous district attorneys NEED to remain in check, otherwise you can kiss "innocent until proven guilty" goodbye. Why you ask? Well if they can use any evidence they obtain, they can kick in your front door whenever they please. and then what will you do?

No they can't go anywhere they please...because if they do, they'd lose their job or be prosecuted. So this way yes, they would be punished (and therefore illegal searches will be discouraged), but the evidence they collected in the process won't go to waste.

Yes, it may be a double standard, I understand that, but it still discourages the officers from conducting the illegal searches, and it still convicts the criminals of the crime they really did. It just makes more sense...