Hornburger
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What do you think?
Illegally seized evidence can not be used in a court of law. Check the Fourth Ammendment.steen said:Perhaps, if you explained what it is?
I'm undecided on the issue, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.Kandahar said:I completely support it. If ill-gotten evidence were admissable in courts, the police would have little to no incentive to obey the Constitution.
Hornburger said:I'm undecided on the issue, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
If the police didn't obey the Constitution and such a rule, what rights would be violated? Your right to privacy. But its not like the police are going to come into your house everyday just to search it. What do people have got to hide?
If we change the constitution, then it WON'T be violating the Constitution. Remember-the Constitution is a living and changing document.
Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?Iriemon said:There is something unsettling to me about the concept of law enforcement having the right to barge into your house and ransack through your stuff whenver they feel like it. It is too easily an abused power.
The exclusionary rule was created because it was the only way to coerse compliance with the law. If there are not consequences, police have no reason to follow the law. If the evidence is allowed, the rules becomes toothless. If police can use evidence based on an illegal breaking in and searching of one's house, why would they bother with a subpoena?
happykat said:Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
There would still be punishment...the police officer would either get reprimanded, suspended, or lose his job from the police department. But the evidence could still be used to convict the person...so yeah I agree with mikkel.Iriemon said:There is something unsettling to me about the concept of law enforcement having the right to barge into your house and ransack through your stuff whenver they feel like it. It is too easily an abused power.
The exclusionary rule was created because it was the only way to coerse compliance with the law. If there are not consequences, police have no reason to follow the law. If the evidence is allowed, the rules becomes toothless. If police can use evidence based on an illegal breaking in and searching of one's house, why would they bother with a subpoena?
Mikkel said:I believe it is actually legal, if the cop can see these 'cages' from the doorway, for him to enter and investigate on probable cause. If he were to break into the man's house before finding these cages, then it gets sticky.
Busta said:There are many, many circomstances and details left out of this example of a police officer entering a home regarding a loud dog and seeing children in cages, to make a reasonable judgment of the matter. However, as long as said police officer was acting in "Good Faith" and/or "Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing", then it's all good.
On the other hand, I recall an incident in California, a few years ago, where a search warrant was executed at an incorrect apartment within a complex. Despite the fact that the raid yielded the exposure of a meth. lab and a prostitution ring, all related charges were dropped and, you guessed it, the tenants sued and got a settlement from the local gov. because the search, itself, was unconstitutional. (violation of the 5th.)
happykat said:Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
Actually, most people do trust the police quite highly...and I think they'd feel safer from letting police actually do their jobs correctly. Who are we really protecting in America nowadays, the criminal or the hardworking American?Caine said:Being someone that is starting Police Academy in about a month.....
I have to say that I agree with the Exclusionary Rule in its current form.
There is no more important value for a Police Officer than integrity.
The abuse of power argument I read was a good one. Police are already abusing there power in many instances, and this would just be another way to do so.
Doing away with, or reforming this rule to allow Prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence would discredit the integrity of all Police Departments everywhere, and thus losing Public trust of the Police. They would become more of an enemy than they already are to some groups and in certain cities.
Exactly! And prosecuting criminals and using evidence to put criminals in jail helps protect our right to safety!The Police exist to serve and protect the people, not violate thier rights.
Who are we protecting??? Everyone, the criminal AND the hardworking American.Hornburger said:Actually, most people do trust the police quite highly...and I think they'd feel safer from letting police actually do their jobs correctly. Who are we really protecting in America nowadays, the criminal or the hardworking American?
Exactly! And prosecuting criminals and using evidence to put criminals in jail helps protect our right to safety!
happykat said:Not that I'm leaning either way...........but what do you do when a police man goes to a man's house to tell him to quiet his dog and sees 13 children in cages with no clothes on through the window?
Not what I meant...but okay.Caine said:Who are we protecting??? Everyone, the criminal AND the hardworking American.
I in no way condone the actions of my father (a convicted felon), BUT, I would hate to think that the police would refuse him services in an emergency just because he is a convicted felon.
Well, I don't think this is taking it too far, because if the evidence is illegally obtained, the cop can still be prosecuted if found guilty...it's not like the cop won't go through any consequences. I think it would be too far when there wouldn't be any consequences for the cop.Yes, prosecuring criminals and using evidence does protect our right to safety.
But when does one right outweight another?
Hornburger said:Not what I meant...but okay.
Well, I don't think this is taking it too far, because if the evidence is illegally obtained, the cop can still be prosecuted if found guilty...it's not like the cop won't go through any consequences. I think it would be too far when there wouldn't be any consequences for the cop.
That may be true, and that's why police departments will have to lay down the hammer when dealing with officers who illegally seize evidence.Caine said:Yes, but reforming the rule to allow for this will only make some law enforcers think they can get away with it more easily.
Caine said:Who are we protecting??? Everyone, the criminal AND the hardworking American.
I in no way condone the actions of my father (a convicted felon), BUT, I would hate to think that the police would refuse him services in an emergency just because he is a convicted felon.
Yes, prosecuring criminals and using evidence does protect our right to safety.
But when does one right outweight another?
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!libertarian_knight said:Our right to safety? pbfft