Exclusionary Rule

[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.

Isn't trash public domain? I thought police were allowed to look through the trash. That's quite strange...

 

[AlbqOwl]

Isn't trash public domain? I thought police were allowed to look through the trash. That's quite strange...

If it is in a public dumpster or receptacle in a public place, they can. If it is on private property it belongs to the resident of that property and a search warrant is required to search it. In the case I cited, the police waited until the city trash truck had collected it, but still on a technicality, it remained the resident's trash until it was fulled intermingled with all the other trash the city had collected. Ridiculous? Absolutely. But nevertheless, it was stuff like this that made some re-interpretation of the exclusionary law practical and necessary in order for justice to be done.

 

[steen]

Pfft, the moment that can was lifted off the sidewalk, it was not on private property. That was plain silly.

 

[debate_junkie]

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.


Sure I can, lol.


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...

I'm glad you feel comfortable living life by a double standard. Well, when they take your suggestions for prosecutions in the United States, I will move thank you. I don't WANT the constitution shredded.

Do as I say, not as I do? Yeah, that's a great way to encourage a police force to protect and serve. DON'T do an illegal search, but if you do, hey we'll use your evidence, and you'll go to jail, too. Nice... the DA who uses the illegally obtained evidence is JUST as guilty as the cop who got it for him/her. Remember... the police and District Attorney's office do the same things... cops arrest, DA's prosecute... can't fault one and not the other.

laughs... having DA'S prosecuting cops for the very evidence used to get them a conviction. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. But nice way to try and screw up the already flawed legal system.

 

[Hornburger]

I'm glad you feel comfortable living life by a double standard. Well, when they take your suggestions for prosecutions in the United States, I will move thank you. I don't WANT the constitution shredded.

Do as I say, not as I do? Yeah, that's a great way to encourage a police force to protect and serve. DON'T do an illegal search, but if you do, hey we'll use your evidence, and you'll go to jail, too. Nice... the DA who uses the illegally obtained evidence is JUST as guilty as the cop who got it for him/her. Remember... the police and District Attorney's office do the same things... cops arrest, DA's prosecute... can't fault one and not the other.

laughs... having DA'S prosecuting cops for the very evidence used to get them a conviction. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. But nice way to try and screw up the already flawed legal system.

So you'd rather put criminals back into society just because of how it looks?

I don't care how it looks, it works. Before they put the exclusionary rule into our law system, I don't think police officers went into everyone's house and searched just to see if they were doing illegal activities or not. How is this "shredding the Constitution"? We are protecting people from criminals!

You keep more guilty criminals off the streets AND you keep cops from intruding people's privacy. What's there to complain about? "How things look" isn's as important as "How things work".

 

[debate_junkie]

So you'd rather put criminals back into society just because of how it looks?

I don't care how it looks, it works. Before they put the exclusionary rule into our law system, I don't think police officers went into everyone's house and searched just to see if they were doing illegal activities or not. How is this "shredding the Constitution"? We are protecting people from criminals!

You keep more guilty criminals off the streets AND you keep cops from intruding people's privacy. What's there to complain about? "How things look" isn's as important as "How things work".

I'm all for getting criminals off the street.. HOWEVER violating peoples rights ISNT the way to go. Think about it.. someone who looks like you, drives the same kind of car you do... commits an armed robbery at a bank. You happen to have your business and personal accounts at said bank. You were IN the bank the morning of the robbery, but not at the time it occured. As you arrive at your office, the cops are ALREADY searching it, and have already searched your home... without a warrant. They put you at the scene, your car at the scene, and ALL of the circumstantial evidence they've gathered is used.. your bank records (hey business isn't as good as you'd like it to be) the mortgage is late.... wow... instant conviction (I've seen it happen).

So, you DIDN'T commit this crime, and yet you're going to prison for it... because they illegally obtained your records and stuff. Now, still convinced that using illegally obtained evidence is the way to go? I'm not. Trust me, scenario's will play out like this more frequently than they do now... and if you don't think they do... better start looking a bit closer.

 

[Hornburger]

I'm all for getting criminals off the street.. HOWEVER violating peoples rights ISNT the way to go. Think about it.. someone who looks like you, drives the same kind of car you do... commits an armed robbery at a bank. You happen to have your business and personal accounts at said bank. You were IN the bank the morning of the robbery, but not at the time it occured. As you arrive at your office, the cops are ALREADY searching it, and have already searched your home... without a warrant. They put you at the scene, your car at the scene, and ALL of the circumstantial evidence they've gathered is used.. your bank records (hey business isn't as good as you'd like it to be) the mortgage is late.... wow... instant conviction (I've seen it happen).

So, you DIDN'T commit this crime, and yet you're going to prison for it... because they illegally obtained your records and stuff. Now, still convinced that using illegally obtained evidence is the way to go? I'm not. Trust me, scenario's will play out like this more frequently than they do now... and if you don't think they do... better start looking a bit closer.

That's not going to happen. Why? Because police would rather not get punished. If they didn't care about consequences, then they already would be doing something like that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That's not going to happen. Why? Because police would rather not get punished. If they didn't care about consequences, then they already would be doing something like that.

I know with absolute certainty that nobody, and I mean nobody, is more disheartened by solid evidence being throw out on a technicality than is the police officer who obtained that evidence. That's why competent police officers do their damndest to follow every jot and tittle of the law in obtaining that evidence. But if they inadvertently slip up on some minor thing while doing their damndest to follow the law, there should be some leniency for that. Any judge worth his/her salt should be able to discern between flagrant violation of the law and an inadvertent misstep.

Thugs, robbers, and murderers should not go free because key evidence was disallowed on an inadvertent technicality. Such would even cause thugs, robbers, and murderers (or their defense lawyers) to actually set up situations to create such technicalities and thus eliminate incriminating evidence.

There simply has to be reason as well as absolutes written into the laws.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

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

What do you mean "Bush's" NSA surveillance? That's been going on as long as the technology's been available, so we're talking Carter or Reagan, at least.

====

And that scenario I posted about the cops holding a simple traffic stop until the K-9 unit could arrive and sniff the car for drugs was ruled in favor of the storm troopers by the US Supreme Court.

 

[libertarian_knight]

So you'd rather put criminals back into society just because of how it looks?

I don't care how it looks, it works. Before they put the exclusionary rule into our law system, I don't think police officers went into everyone's house and searched just to see if they were doing illegal activities or not. How is this "shredding the Constitution"? We are protecting people from criminals!

You keep more guilty criminals off the streets AND you keep cops from intruding people's privacy. What's there to complain about? "How things look" isn's as important as "How things work".

Listen, crimminals, though they are a problem, won't bring down our society, Corruption of our State WILL.

"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

As for shredding
"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"

 

[Hornburger]

Listen, crimminals, though they are a problem, won't bring down our society, Corruption of our State WILL.

"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton

As for shredding
"Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"

hmm, I don't see anywhere in there where it says evidence can't be used from such searches. But in accordance with that ammendment, police will be prosecuted for such searches. That way you keep your right to privacy and you are safer. Why are all of you complaining over a win-win situation?

 

[libertarian_knight]

hmm, I don't see anywhere in there where it says evidence can't be used from such searches. But in accordance with that ammendment, police will be prosecuted for such searches. That way you keep your right to privacy and you are safer. Why are all of you complaining over a win-win situation?

It's that tricky part about needing the warrant to describe the places to be searched and the people or things to be siezed.

So, people are to be SECURE.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, "

SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.

SHOULD the search be reasonable, a warrant is necessary, affirmed by oath or affirmation of propable cause (not POSSIBLE CAUSE), describing the the places to be searched, or the persons and places to be siezed.

See, beucase the Brits used to bust down colonists' doors (without reasonable cause), arrest people (without reasonable cause), and even make up crimes after the arrest (ex post facto).

Oh, and there it is again, police will arrest police, and prosecutors prosecute prosecutors. These poeple are co-workers, teammates AND FRIENDS. sheesh.

 

[Caine]

What do you mean "Bush's" NSA surveillance? That's been going on as long as the technology's been available, so we're talking Carter or Reagan, at least.

====

And that scenario I posted about the cops holding a simple traffic stop until the K-9 unit could arrive and sniff the car for drugs was ruled in favor of the storm troopers by the US Supreme Court.

You took what I said about the "cases" you represented, and my opinion on the situation out of context, and typical conservative attack from those on this website.

 

[Hornburger]

It's that tricky part about needing the warrant to describe the places to be searched and the people or things to be siezed.

So, people are to be SECURE.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, "

SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.

SHOULD the search be reasonable, a warrant is necessary, affirmed by oath or affirmation of propable cause (not POSSIBLE CAUSE), describing the the places to be searched, or the persons and places to be siezed.

See, beucase the Brits used to bust down colonists' doors (without reasonable cause), arrest people (without reasonable cause), and even make up crimes after the arrest (ex post facto).

Oh, and there it is again, police will arrest police, and prosecutors prosecute prosecutors. These poeple are co-workers, teammates AND FRIENDS. sheesh.

Dude, it is talking about how police can't illegally march into anywhere they want to. I totally agree. If they do, they will be punished. But evidence is evidence, and you can't take away that evidence based on "technicalities" as Owl was talking about. That ammendment is talking about how police can't conduct illegal searches, but it never says how evidence can't be used.

Before the U.S. has the exclusionary rule, no one was complaining about "constitutional rights infringement" and police "breaking into everyone's houses".

And all of it isn't necessarily reported by police, it also is reported by victims. Things worked fine before the exclusionary rule was implemented-we had the evidence, and police weren't seen as enemies.

And you talk about the exclusionary rule protecting our "security". How? So you don't have to be bothered for a couple of minutes? WHAT DO PEOPLE HAVE TO HIDE?

 

[Caine]

WHAT DO PEOPLE HAVE TO HIDE?

Thier own personal lives, which should not be interrupted by unwarranted or illegal searches, thats what our government is about.

Now suddenly neo-cons want to whipe thier asses with the constitution because of the hype of the boogey man terrorist and criminals.

 

[Hornburger]

Thier own personal lives, which should not be interrupted by unwarranted or illegal searches, thats what our government is about.

Now suddenly neo-cons want to whipe thier asses with the constitution because of the hype of the boogey man terrorist and criminals.

Okay, but still, their lives won't get intruded upon, because there still will be consequences.

 

[Caine]

Okay, but still, their lives won't get intruded upon, because there still will be consequences.

So?
I don't want my house unlawfully raided by police.

 

[Hornburger]

So?
I don't want my house unlawfully raided by police.

It probably won't be. Police would be punished if they did. And people don't like such punishments. If people didn't mind punishment...then our law system would be completely useless.

The vast majority of police officers want to follow things by the book to avoids such punishments and to do their job correctly. I don't think there would be much of a problem. If they did try to do an illegal search, they will be punished, and that will discourage other officers from following the officer's poor example.

 

[libertarian_knight]

It probably won't be. Police would be punished if they did. And people don't like such punishments. If people didn't mind punishment...then our law system would be completely useless.

The vast majority of police officers want to follow things by the book to avoids such punishments and to do their job correctly. I don't think there would be much of a problem. If they did try to do an illegal search, they will be punished, and that will discourage other officers from following the officer's poor example.

I would think, the reason the law was put in place, is because people were NOT getting punished. Cops, Detective, prosecutors, and judges will socialize and work with poeple on a day to day basis, and more often than not, may even be FREINDS.

Being a friend of a cop can get people out of traffic tickets, imagine a cop being friend with the prosecutor. Without significant public outcry for investigation (and that happens pretty rarely as it is) or high profile cases, they won't arrest and prosecute each other. How much time did what's-his-name Cato kalin or something, spend in jail for tampering with evidence? Not enough?

Can you name one cop jailed, let alone prosecuted, for violating the exclusionary rule?

 

[Hornburger]

I would think, the reason the law was put in place, is because people were NOT getting punished. Cops, Detective, prosecutors, and judges will socialize and work with poeple on a day to day basis, and more often than not, may even be FREINDS.

Being a friend of a cop can get people out of traffic tickets, imagine a cop being friend with the prosecutor. Without significant public outcry for investigation (and that happens pretty rarely as it is) or high profile cases, they won't arrest and prosecute each other. How much time did what's-his-name Cato kalin or something, spend in jail for tampering with evidence? Not enough?

Can you name one cop jailed, let alone prosecuted, for violating the exclusionary rule?

I'm not into law, I don't know specific cases, but I'll try looking into the issue.

Tell me the case, I don't know it.

And the courts would also look into the matter if necessary. It wouldn't just be the police stations if the case is that significant. But police stations also have to punish cops because they don't want the good name of cops and the station put down.

A very high percentage of cops act in good intent and act according to the books. They look out for the good of the public. What's the worst that can happen-you give up a few minutes of your time?