4 ms·

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: > the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evi

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: > the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or

ikeboy 10y ago
What does that mean practically?
- fiatmoney 10y ago
  Whatever they want it to.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    They is the courts, and the criteria sound like they come from precedent, so I want to know what cases created that precedent to know how it should be interpreted.
    - fiatmoney 10y ago
      You're missing the point. "Too attenuated" presumably does have case law, as do things like "substantially related to a compelling government interest" or "probable cause". Those have magnificent, overflowing volumes of decisions enumerating whether they apply to particular circumstances. And yet, oddly enough, it works better to reason backwards from the desired conclusion in a particular case to the most convincing reasoning that could support it, than the reverse.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        You're saying that cases are decided by the judges' views, a not uncommon position. However, there are limits to how far this goes: if a case is clearly against precedent and the judge is made aware of that, they'll usually not deviate. If you disagree, feel free to present reasoning or evidence: mere assertion won't help.
        fiatmoney 10y ago
        Certainly, precedent helps. Who sets precedent? Higher courts. How do they decide how to rule? See parent. Who enforces their precedents against themselves? Well, no one. A precedent goes against what you wish to conclude? Distinguish why it doesn't apply in these circumstances, depending on how much you fear being overruled. Keep doing that, until it swallows the rule, if you wish the rule to go away. In things like evidentiary rulings, you can always distinguish the circumstances, until you go from "a man's home is his castle" to "I smelt marijuana & kicked the door down". In practical & long terms, for issues of government power in particular, predicting how a court will rule is not best done by looking at plausibly applicable precedent.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        Supreme court does overturn precedent occasionally, but this is extremely rare. Most of the time cases never get to the supreme court because they've already been ruled on in other cases. Do you have any particular evidence that courts frequently ignore precedent in favor of their own wishes?
        fiatmoney 10y ago
        Look at the shift in law over time, which should be evidence enough. For instance, from Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence v. Texas, or Roe v Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in < 20 years. As I said, it is usually the case that precedent is distinguished into oblivion rather than explicitly overruled. Only very limited technical issues are "settled law".

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: > the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or

ikeboy 10y ago

What does that mean practically?

fiatmoney 10y ago
Whatever they want it to.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  They is the courts, and the criteria sound like they come from precedent, so I want to know what cases created that precedent to know how it should be interpreted.
  - fiatmoney 10y ago
    You're missing the point. "Too attenuated" presumably does have case law, as do things like "substantially related to a compelling government interest" or "probable cause". Those have magnificent, overflowing volumes of decisions enumerating whether they apply to particular circumstances. And yet, oddly enough, it works better to reason backwards from the desired conclusion in a particular case to the most convincing reasoning that could support it, than the reverse.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      You're saying that cases are decided by the judges' views, a not uncommon position. However, there are limits to how far this goes: if a case is clearly against precedent and the judge is made aware of that, they'll usually not deviate. If you disagree, feel free to present reasoning or evidence: mere assertion won't help.
      - fiatmoney 10y ago
        Certainly, precedent helps. Who sets precedent? Higher courts. How do they decide how to rule? See parent. Who enforces their precedents against themselves? Well, no one. A precedent goes against what you wish to conclude? Distinguish why it doesn't apply in these circumstances, depending on how much you fear being overruled. Keep doing that, until it swallows the rule, if you wish the rule to go away. In things like evidentiary rulings, you can always distinguish the circumstances, until you go from "a man's home is his castle" to "I smelt marijuana & kicked the door down". In practical & long terms, for issues of government power in particular, predicting how a court will rule is not best done by looking at plausibly applicable precedent.
        ikeboy 10y ago
        Supreme court does overturn precedent occasionally, but this is extremely rare. Most of the time cases never get to the supreme court because they've already been ruled on in other cases. Do you have any particular evidence that courts frequently ignore precedent in favor of their own wishes?
        fiatmoney 10y ago
        Look at the shift in law over time, which should be evidence enough. For instance, from Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence v. Texas, or Roe v Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in < 20 years. As I said, it is usually the case that precedent is distinguished into oblivion rather than explicitly overruled. Only very limited technical issues are "settled law".