3 ms·

And they should need to fix that, so that if the police confiscate your thing without your consent, then the police shall be arrested for theft. (The other poli

• mewse 7y ago
  As a practical matter, would the items stolen by the original police then need to be taken into evidence by the second set of police, to support the charge of theft against the first set of police?
  • zzo38computer 7y ago
    Of course, that is a valid point. But maybe photographs will do in this case?
    • beerandt 7y ago
      Then they should do in the first case. The whole "need to keep the evidence until the case is closed" thing is a sham. If a crime scene can be released back to the owner before a case is closed, so can evidence. Making it difficult is just another case of the process being part of the punishment.
• Johnny555 7y ago
  If police can't confiscate any evidence without your consent, how would they collect evidence before it's destroyed? Sure, destroying evidence is a crime, but how can the police prove that it was criminal evidence at all? Police: Your honor, when we stopped him, the suspect had 5 years of financial books showing his money laundering in the back of his car. We told him to bring it to court. Suspect: Naaa, that was my daughter's homework, and it accidentally blew out my car window when I was driving home. Sorry about the litter, I deserve that $500 littering fine.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• jakelazaroff 7y ago
  So you think search warrants should be illegal? If police find someone holding a gun next to a dead body, they shouldn't be able to take that gun if the suspect refuses? Police must be able to confiscate evidence related to an ongoing case. They just need to give it back after the case closes.