Thief Demands Right to Privacy

[Joe Guy]

Mostly Italians...

[Long Run]

The appeal was from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained in what he argued was an illegal search in violation of the 4th Amendment. If the basis for the stop were found to be improper, the evidence obtained as a result would be suppressed and the conviction overturned.

And it goes without saying that this is yet another fine example of the absurdity of the exclusionary rule, where know felons are allowed to go free if they can show police failed to follow the rules (in a minor way or significantly) in the obtaining of the evidence. It leads to this kind of ridiculous game where the only thing the criminal argues is whether the police violated some "right" since they are obviously guilty on the facts. We are the only country that has created this pointy-headed artifice; in this instance, it is the rest of the world that has common sense and we are silly geese.

[Crackpot]

You haven't been reading gobs Guardian posts have you?

[Long Run]

You haven't been reading gobs Guardian posts have you?

No, I've been on this rant for quite some time on my own.

[Sue U]

And it goes without saying that this is yet another fine example of the absurdity of the exclusionary rule, where know felons are allowed to go free if they can show police failed to follow the rules (in a minor way or significantly) in the obtaining of the evidence.

The exclusionary rule is not an absurdity, it is a protection of constitutional rights (search & seizure, self-incrimination, coercion, right to counsel, due process) against over-reaching and illegal conduct of the government generally and the police in particular. It has its roots in English law and has been applied here in its more-or-less modern form for at least a hundred years. But even so, there are numerous exceptions that would allow in otherwise excludable evidence anyway. The rule reflects a value judgment made by this society: that we would rather free guilty criminals than allow the encroachment of a police state. I'm fine with that.

[Long Run]

And the rest of the world has come to the sensible conclusion that known criminals should not be let free, and that there are many other ways to deal with possible police misconduct rather than letting criminals run free.

[Sue U]

And yet even here, it is the exceedingly rare case where known criminals are allowed "run free" because of the exclusionary rule. The case discussed in this thread is a fine example of how the rule is studiously avoided where the defendant's guilt is not seriously in question.

[Long Run]

And yet even here, it is the exceedingly rare case where known criminals are allowed "run free" because of the exclusionary rule.

You only have to tune in to Law and Order to know that it happens once or twice a week, without counting reruns or weekend marathons. Or do some research (I found Marquette Law Review 78:45, its a little dated but provides reliable data) and it looks like just less than 1% of criminal defendants go free because of the rule. 1% of a lot of criminals is still a lot of criminals, and not exceedingly rare. However, as always, that is the tip of the ice berg. Many more criminals are never charged because the DA won't bring the case because of the rule, and in many other cases, the defense quickly negotiates a lesser crime because of the rule.

[Crackpot]

I was there Saturday.

[Long Run]

Hope you mean Marquette and not negotiating a plea deal.

[Crackpot]

Marquette

[Scooter]

it looks like just less than 1% of criminal defendants go free because of the rule. 1% of a lot of criminals is still a lot of criminals

1% of criminal defendants and 1% of criminals are not the same thing. You have no way of knowing how many of those defendants would have been convicted but for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence.

And no, allowing 1% of criminals to go free so that the 99.9% or whatever of the population who are not criminals can be assured of their constitutional protections is not anything close to too high a price.

Many more criminals are never charged because the DA won't bring the case because of the rule, and in many other cases, the defense quickly negotiates a lesser crime because of the rule.

And your solution would be what? To give police carte blanche to openly violate constitutional guarantees because they know that the evidence so obtained would not be excluded as a result? The troll trio used to make a lot of silly comments about "police states" on the CSB, but what you are proposing would constitute the very definition of a police state.

[Long Run]

Your enlightened country, Scooter, does not have an exclusionary rule. Instead it uses other methods to prevent the police from violating rights. Ideas that have been suggested here include significant cash compensation for when the police violate rights (actually this already exists and there have been 7 figure payouts for serious violations); independent discipline review boards that can impose sanctions on offending officers up to an including termination of employment and in appropriate cases, jail time; fines levied against the offending department causing layoffs of fellow officers; etc. It doesn't take too much thinking to realize there are many ways to police the police without letting criminals go free. The rest of the world has figured it out; why can't we?

[Scooter]

Your enlightened country, Scooter, does not have an exclusionary rule.

In my country, evidence is very often excluded on the basis that it was illegally obtained. The same is true in many other countries. The fact that there is no absolute rule excluding such evidence in all cases makes them no different from how the exclusionary rule operates in your own country.

And where history has shown that police can riddle an unarmed man with 41 bullets and escape with no criminal punishment, no federal civil rights charges, and no internal disciplinary sanctions, that tells me loud and clear that none of the other "remedies" you propose could ever be adequate to curb police misconduct.

[Scooter]

You fail to mention one possible alternative to the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence that I could get behind, namely, that police, prosecutors and anyone else who has collected or used illegally obtained evidence be subjected to exactly the same sentence as the criminal defendant convicted using such evidence. "Exactly the same sentence" meaning that the sentence must be served in gen pop.

And yes, a prosecutor that wanted to end his/her career on a high note by convicting a serial killer with illegally obtained evidence would be free to do so, and would then take his/her turn to get the needle right alongside the convicted murderer.

I think that would be a perfectly fair exchange. And I suspect that cases in which attempts were made to use illegally obtained evidence would drop to near zero.

Problem solved.

[Scooter]

And should the state be able to introduce all illegal evidence at trial, or only certain kinds. If prosecutors are able to knowingly introduce evidence obtained from an illegal search, then should they also be permitted to suborn perjury? Transplant a defendant's fingerprints/DNA to a crime scene? Where does one draw the line?