4 ms·

When they searched his car, with his consent, they found quite a stash of meth and cocaine. I get that they might have to let him go due to the 4th amendment v

When they searched his car, with his consent, they found quite a stash of meth and cocaine. I get that they might have to let him go due to the 4th amendment violation, but I also think that he should be given probation or rehab or something. Just because the criminal portion has ended doesn't mean the public health/safety angle needs to be ignored.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> When they searched his car, with his consent Without his consent. > but I also think that he should be given probation or rehab or something. “Given” how? Except with due process—including findings based on legally obtained evidence—the government can't “give” him any mandate depriving him of liberty.
larkeith 8y ago
Setting such a precedent would make an utter mockery of the 4th amendment.
- scotty79 8y ago
  Ignoring solid evidence just because it was acquired illegally is mockery of justice, logic and common sense. If it was collected illegally then punish the person that did the illegal thing but do not discard the evidence.
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    > mockery of justice The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine [0] would disagree with you. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
    - scotty79 8y ago
      I know it's how things are in US. Some stupid thing someone came up with in 1920 stuck there. Not sure if any other country on the planet has such a silly rule. If evidence is false or tampered with then by all means ignore it, but if it's solid it doesn't matter if it came out just because someone committed some additional crime.
  - scottmf 8y ago
    Allowing illegal evidence would encourage illegal searches.
    - scotty79 8y ago
      If searches are illegal you can just punish those who commit them. Banning those people from working as policemen would be far better deterrent.
scotty79 8y ago
Or they can apologise to him and give him back his meth and cocaine... and immediately arrest him back for undoubtedly possessing it.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> When they searched his car, with his consent Without his consent. > but I also think that he should be given probation or rehab or something. “Given” how? Except with due process—including findings based on legally obtained evidence—the government can't “give” him any mandate depriving him of liberty.

larkeith 8y ago

Setting such a precedent would make an utter mockery of the 4th amendment.

scotty79 8y ago
Ignoring solid evidence just because it was acquired illegally is mockery of justice, logic and common sense. If it was collected illegally then punish the person that did the illegal thing but do not discard the evidence.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  > mockery of justice The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine [0] would disagree with you. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
  - scotty79 8y ago
    I know it's how things are in US. Some stupid thing someone came up with in 1920 stuck there. Not sure if any other country on the planet has such a silly rule. If evidence is false or tampered with then by all means ignore it, but if it's solid it doesn't matter if it came out just because someone committed some additional crime.
- scottmf 8y ago
  Allowing illegal evidence would encourage illegal searches.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    If searches are illegal you can just punish those who commit them. Banning those people from working as policemen would be far better deterrent.

scotty79 8y ago

Or they can apologise to him and give him back his meth and cocaine... and immediately arrest him back for undoubtedly possessing it.