7 ms·

I don't get why US judges often throw out evidence because it was not acquired according to correct procedure. I understand that confessions made under pressure

I don't get why US judges often throw out evidence because it was not acquired according to correct procedure. I understand that confessions made under pressure are worthless, since people confess anything when threatened or tortured. But factual evidence like a video recording? What difference does it make how it was acquired? The correct action in a case like this should be to use the evidence, and discipline the officer who violated regulations. When a court disregards obvious evidence, and pretends that it doesn't know things it really does; and when that happens to help a well situated criminal with expensive attorneys; then the obvious result is that the public loses trust in the government. The abstract ideal of "justice" must guide how the law is applied. If courts rule only according to the law as it is written, rather than on the spirit behind it, when courts fail to bring justice to criminals; then we will end up with lynch mobs and vigilantes. Who can blame a redneck in the woods stocking up on guns when you read an article like that? You can't trust a government that lets a wife beater run free because of a formality. When the system doesn't protect you, you need to protect yourself. Right?

airza 10y ago
because it gives the capital-S State a motive for constant countrywide warrantless surveillance?
tempestn 10y ago
While I agree that it's painful seeing evidence thrown out for procedural reasons, there is certainly logic behind it, as it provides a check on the power of the police. It may well be the lesser evil (as intended). Simply disciplining an officer who doesn't follow procedure may not be sufficient incentive to prevent people's rights from being ignored. That's especially true if officers cover for one another so it's not even possible to determine who is responsible. Unless the punishment is extremely harsh (which would unfairly penalize legitimate mistakes), it may often not be effective anyway, as many well-meaning officers could accept punishment in order to put (who they believe is) the bad guy away. The problem is, when you start going in that direction, innocent people's rights will be infringed as well. You already see cases all the time where innocent people go to jail due to police bending or breaking the rules. I have to think that allowing all factual evidence regardless of source would make that worse. That said, it's obviously not a just result in an individual case like this. It would be nice to be able to have justice in these situations without losing the overall disincentive. I'm not sure that it's possible, but would love to be wrong.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >While I agree that it's painful seeing evidence thrown out for procedural reasons, there is certainly logic behind it, as it provides a check on the power of the police. It may well be the lesser evil (as intended). Simply disciplining an officer who doesn't follow procedure may not be sufficient incentive to prevent people's rights from being ignored. Then escalate that punishment as needed, still without throwing out evidence? E.g. fire the officer outright, don't just "discipline" him, and impose a penalty to his whole department.
  - 1123581321 10y ago
    Evidence is processed correctly almost every time. This suggests that inadmissibility is already an effective penalty.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      We weren't discussing whether inadmissibility is an effective penalty or not though. What we where discussing was if inadmissibility is good for serving justice (as opposed to serving as a guard against illegally obtaining evidence, and if so, whether we can abolish inadmissibility and use other, equally capable guards against illegally obtaining evidence).
  - posterboy 10y ago
    Read the whole comment before posting, please.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      I've read the whole comment before posting. If you think someone missed something from the comment he was responding, say what that was, instead of posting zero-content critiques please.
      - posterboy 10y ago
        There's the latter two third of the grand parent comment that completely counters your comment.
deadhand 10y ago
The problem with allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible is that it sets a legal precedent. There are no one -offs in common law countries. The DA can use this case as an argument next time, effectively incentivising police to breach protocol in other more egregious ways like tapping into your phone calls without reason. It saddens me deeply that Chahal is getting off on a technicality but ultimately there is no such thing as an objective spirit of the law. All we have is the literal text - the letter of the law - that's in the books and two sides arguing the best way to interpret that. Writing warrant laws that protect good citizens and good citizens only is impossible. Sometimes bad people slip through the cracks as a result. It's a tragedy, but not one that is easy to remedy.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The problem with allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible is that it sets a legal precedent. I think what the parent is asking for is precisely for it to be the case ALWAYS, so whether this specific instance would set a legal precedent shouldn't matter. >The DA can use this case as an argument next time, effectively incentivising police to breach protocol in other more egregious ways like tapping into your phone calls without reason. Not if in addition to using the evidence they also punish the policemen who broke protocol as severely as needed to de-incentivise them. Except we have some reason to believe they would value nailing some specific criminal with video evidence over their careers...
  - alex_hitchins 10y ago
    Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? If so, this is to me is an absurd conclusion.
    - scotty79 10y ago
      Why is that? The purpose of evidence is to help determine the truth. How the legality of how evidence was obtained affects its validity? Those two things should be independent. If policeman obtained evidence illegally but it's still good evidence (not planted for example) then it shouldn't be ignored. Policeman should be prosecuted for breaching the law that specifies how evidences can be obtained and punished, but that's separate case.
strathmeyer 10y ago
"I don't get why US judges often throw out evidence because it was not acquired according to correct procedure." I see you've never been illegally searched. Don't worry, it will happen. If you're lucky they don't just take your things.
MatekCopatek 10y ago
What you're suggesting would mean we can practically forget about warrants, especially in big cases. The prosecutor just needs to find an officer ready to take a punishment and he can get his evidence in any way he can. And what about civil cases? I'm pretty sure there would be much more illegal surveillance if the gathered data could be useful in courts. You're questioning some basic principles of our legal systems that are here to protect us. I agree that it's sad to see how far corruption can go and it's also discouraging to see criminals walk on technicalities, but those issues should be solved differently, not by reducing the scrutiny on obtaining evidence. See [Blackstone's formulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation) and [Exclusionary rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) for a more detailed explanation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
meows 10y ago
Why discipline the officer? The officer is just a cog in a political machine. The people who exist at the top of that machine take almost all profits from the high-status victory. And after that officer has been penalized, the DA, mayor, police chief, whatever, are going to be the faces that removed a rich villain in a popular way. Also, the officer who violates will be penalized, and after they fall out of public awareness, they will be brought back for their fine contribution to somebody's political resume.
billskills 10y ago
No, this is an important example of the protections afforded by the system, along with things like having access to the evidence being used against you. Secret tribunals and wiretaps might have worked for the Gestapo, but this is America, dammit!
scotty79 10y ago
Because USA has antiquated British legal system that's very concerned with prosecution, defense, pleas, testimonies, punishments and not so much with what actually happened.
- billskills 10y ago
  You're just guessing. Hint: look up the fourth amendment.
  - scotty79 10y ago
    I'm not really getting your point. What protection about unreasonable searches has to do with the fact that some evidences must be ignored? If somebody is breaching your 4th amendment laws he should be prosecuted, but if he finds a a photo of you and a corpse it shouldn't be ignored just because search was unreasonable.
    - billskills 10y ago
      It's really very simple. If the evidence is not ignored, it's an incentive for illegal searches. > if he finds a a photo of you and a corpse it shouldn't be ignored just because search was unreasonable. You could not be more wrong on that point.
      - scotty79 10y ago
        > It's really very simple. If the evidence is not ignored, it's an incentive for illegal searches. I know that's the theory, but most countries don't have this and they also don't have plague of illegal searches, because, you know, they are illegal and police tends to do legal things and they can loose their jobs and be prosecuted if they start doing illegal things. I understand that the police in USA has a history of allowing police to do illegal things for "greater good" but ignoring evidence is way too late to prevent illegal searches. > You could not be more wrong on that point. In USA, maybe UK and perhaps few other countries I'd be. In virtually any other country I wouldn't be.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The correct action in a case like this should be to use the evidence, and discipline the officer who violated regulations. Illegally-obtained evidence applied in a criminal trial is always the government violating the fundamental law which governs its authority to use power against the people. Which is why it cannot be tolerated (and why it is not the exclusionary rule, but the increasingly broad exceptions to it, that are problematic.) Its true that such excesses by government also involve violations of the law by individual agents of government, which ideally should be punished as well as the government being constrained from exceeding the Constitutional limitations on its powers, but such punishment -- which would require the government to pursue it, which is why it rarely happens -- is no substitute for restraint on government.

airza 10y ago

because it gives the capital-S State a motive for constant countrywide warrantless surveillance?

tempestn 10y ago

While I agree that it's painful seeing evidence thrown out for procedural reasons, there is certainly logic behind it, as it provides a check on the power of the police. It may well be the lesser evil (as intended). Simply disciplining an officer who doesn't follow procedure may not be sufficient incentive to prevent people's rights from being ignored. That's especially true if officers cover for one another so it's not even possible to determine who is responsible. Unless the punishment is extremely harsh (which would unfairly penalize legitimate mistakes), it may often not be effective anyway, as many well-meaning officers could accept punishment in order to put (who they believe is) the bad guy away. The problem is, when you start going in that direction, innocent people's rights will be infringed as well. You already see cases all the time where innocent people go to jail due to police bending or breaking the rules. I have to think that allowing all factual evidence regardless of source would make that worse. That said, it's obviously not a just result in an individual case like this. It would be nice to be able to have justice in these situations without losing the overall disincentive. I'm not sure that it's possible, but would love to be wrong.

coldtea 10y ago
>While I agree that it's painful seeing evidence thrown out for procedural reasons, there is certainly logic behind it, as it provides a check on the power of the police. It may well be the lesser evil (as intended). Simply disciplining an officer who doesn't follow procedure may not be sufficient incentive to prevent people's rights from being ignored. Then escalate that punishment as needed, still without throwing out evidence? E.g. fire the officer outright, don't just "discipline" him, and impose a penalty to his whole department.
- 1123581321 10y ago
  Evidence is processed correctly almost every time. This suggests that inadmissibility is already an effective penalty.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    We weren't discussing whether inadmissibility is an effective penalty or not though. What we where discussing was if inadmissibility is good for serving justice (as opposed to serving as a guard against illegally obtaining evidence, and if so, whether we can abolish inadmissibility and use other, equally capable guards against illegally obtaining evidence).
- posterboy 10y ago
  Read the whole comment before posting, please.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    I've read the whole comment before posting. If you think someone missed something from the comment he was responding, say what that was, instead of posting zero-content critiques please.
    - posterboy 10y ago
      There's the latter two third of the grand parent comment that completely counters your comment.

deadhand 10y ago

The problem with allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible is that it sets a legal precedent. There are no one -offs in common law countries. The DA can use this case as an argument next time, effectively incentivising police to breach protocol in other more egregious ways like tapping into your phone calls without reason. It saddens me deeply that Chahal is getting off on a technicality but ultimately there is no such thing as an objective spirit of the law. All we have is the literal text - the letter of the law - that's in the books and two sides arguing the best way to interpret that. Writing warrant laws that protect good citizens and good citizens only is impossible. Sometimes bad people slip through the cracks as a result. It's a tragedy, but not one that is easy to remedy.

coldtea 10y ago
>The problem with allowing illegally obtained evidence to be admissible is that it sets a legal precedent. I think what the parent is asking for is precisely for it to be the case ALWAYS, so whether this specific instance would set a legal precedent shouldn't matter. >The DA can use this case as an argument next time, effectively incentivising police to breach protocol in other more egregious ways like tapping into your phone calls without reason. Not if in addition to using the evidence they also punish the policemen who broke protocol as severely as needed to de-incentivise them. Except we have some reason to believe they would value nailing some specific criminal with video evidence over their careers...
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  Are you suggesting evidence should be presentable to the court so long as the judge/just know it was illegally gained and the officer fired? If so, this is to me is an absurd conclusion.
  - scotty79 10y ago
    Why is that? The purpose of evidence is to help determine the truth. How the legality of how evidence was obtained affects its validity? Those two things should be independent. If policeman obtained evidence illegally but it's still good evidence (not planted for example) then it shouldn't be ignored. Policeman should be prosecuted for breaching the law that specifies how evidences can be obtained and punished, but that's separate case.

strathmeyer 10y ago

"I don't get why US judges often throw out evidence because it was not acquired according to correct procedure." I see you've never been illegally searched. Don't worry, it will happen. If you're lucky they don't just take your things.

MatekCopatek 10y ago

What you're suggesting would mean we can practically forget about warrants, especially in big cases. The prosecutor just needs to find an officer ready to take a punishment and he can get his evidence in any way he can. And what about civil cases? I'm pretty sure there would be much more illegal surveillance if the gathered data could be useful in courts. You're questioning some basic principles of our legal systems that are here to protect us. I agree that it's sad to see how far corruption can go and it's also discouraging to see criminals walk on technicalities, but those issues should be solved differently, not by reducing the scrutiny on obtaining evidence. See [Blackstone's formulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation) and [Exclusionary rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) for a more detailed explanation.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

meows 10y ago

Why discipline the officer? The officer is just a cog in a political machine. The people who exist at the top of that machine take almost all profits from the high-status victory. And after that officer has been penalized, the DA, mayor, police chief, whatever, are going to be the faces that removed a rich villain in a popular way. Also, the officer who violates will be penalized, and after they fall out of public awareness, they will be brought back for their fine contribution to somebody's political resume.

billskills 10y ago

No, this is an important example of the protections afforded by the system, along with things like having access to the evidence being used against you. Secret tribunals and wiretaps might have worked for the Gestapo, but this is America, dammit!

scotty79 10y ago

Because USA has antiquated British legal system that's very concerned with prosecution, defense, pleas, testimonies, punishments and not so much with what actually happened.

billskills 10y ago
You're just guessing. Hint: look up the fourth amendment.
- scotty79 10y ago
  I'm not really getting your point. What protection about unreasonable searches has to do with the fact that some evidences must be ignored? If somebody is breaching your 4th amendment laws he should be prosecuted, but if he finds a a photo of you and a corpse it shouldn't be ignored just because search was unreasonable.
  - billskills 10y ago
    It's really very simple. If the evidence is not ignored, it's an incentive for illegal searches. > if he finds a a photo of you and a corpse it shouldn't be ignored just because search was unreasonable. You could not be more wrong on that point.
    - scotty79 10y ago
      > It's really very simple. If the evidence is not ignored, it's an incentive for illegal searches. I know that's the theory, but most countries don't have this and they also don't have plague of illegal searches, because, you know, they are illegal and police tends to do legal things and they can loose their jobs and be prosecuted if they start doing illegal things. I understand that the police in USA has a history of allowing police to do illegal things for "greater good" but ignoring evidence is way too late to prevent illegal searches. > You could not be more wrong on that point. In USA, maybe UK and perhaps few other countries I'd be. In virtually any other country I wouldn't be.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The correct action in a case like this should be to use the evidence, and discipline the officer who violated regulations. Illegally-obtained evidence applied in a criminal trial is always the government violating the fundamental law which governs its authority to use power against the people. Which is why it cannot be tolerated (and why it is not the exclusionary rule, but the increasingly broad exceptions to it, that are problematic.) Its true that such excesses by government also involve violations of the law by individual agents of government, which ideally should be punished as well as the government being constrained from exceeding the Constitutional limitations on its powers, but such punishment -- which would require the government to pursue it, which is why it rarely happens -- is no substitute for restraint on government.