8 ms·

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence. Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence. Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car in your own garage, and driving away. Since they got the info that you had the drugs from illegally set cameras, they can't just stop and search your car, but they can "randomly" stop you for a traffic check, and just "randomly" have a drug sniffing dog present, which finds the drugs in your car. If the judges let this go through, the police would use more illegal methods (illegal searches, etc.) to gather data, then just "randomly" detect crime, and then the state would win cases.... and we (the people) don't want that. That's why, if you prove, that they knew the drugs were there from an illegal source of information, everything derived from that illegal source should be dropped as a illegally obtained evidence, to disincentivise the use of illegal methods. Basically, the officer saying they randomly stopped you, would be a lie (=perjury), because they stopped you due their illegal cameras.

JoeSmithson 6y ago
Yes, but what if the cameras are not illegally placed, but in fact put there with a warrant. Then there is nothing illegal going on at all, but it would still be in LE interest to parallel how they know about the drugs, so that they can continue using the camera and maybe find out where the next shipment is going to be as well.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  Then the judge would be aware of the warrant, and wouldnt throw the evidence away, because it would be obtained legally.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    Yes that's precisely my point - there would still be parallel construction but there would be nothing illegal
notduncansmith 6y ago
It might be worth coming up with an example that doesn’t illustrate an end that may justify precisely the means you describe. In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful.
- kls 6y ago
  But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law by breaking the law and it has set a very bad precedence that the police now go looking for crime. Because if they "believe" you are a criminal there is a better than average chance they are going to find something no matter how petty or insignificant. The point being, it does not matter the end result, it never justifies the action in retrospect as the person is and should be assumed innocent until legal evidence of a crime is uncovered. If it was obtained illegally all evidence even parallel construction should be tossed out for the taint it bring with it.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.
    - kls 6y ago
      While it may be move convincing, the hope is for people to see that these rights exist for a reason and that even in the presence of mortal outrage, they should still be defended. Because someone out there, is morally outraged at the way you live your life and would make something illegal that you do if they could. That is the whole point of the bill of rights and the amendments. Is to guarantee a base level of freedom no matter how the winds change. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to get. Maybe it's because I am older and boy have I seen the winds change, but it only takes one swing away from your viewpoint to understand how important they are.
_ah 6y ago
This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said: "When you see on the news that Police randomly stopped a car and discovered a huge cache of drugs... you don't actually think that's random, do you?" TBH I had never thought about it before but now I recognize this pattern everywhere.
- bonestamp2 6y ago
  Yes, it already happens and that's why it's a problem. If they discovered that they should "randomly" pull over that vehicle through evidence that was gathered illegally, then it should also be considered a violation of the 4th amendment... which is likely why the EFF has launched this project.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    It would be interesting - and likely amusing - to extrapolate how many people must be driving around with huge caches of drugs, based on an assumption that purportedly unrelated traffic stops (or equivalent) were in fact random samples.
    - stanfordkid 6y ago
      I really do think a "google maps" for police activity needs to be created -- including every single arrest, prosecution , subsequent legal claim... you should be able to rate police officers like restaurants on Yelp
      - pc86 6y ago
        My local courthouse is rated on Yelp. In a shocking turn of events nobody could have ever predicted, it has 1 star.
- gonzo41 6y ago
  That doesn't mean those stops aren't base on intel gained via legal warrants. It's more likely the police are trying to protect a source, either a person or technical means that is providing them greater information.

JoeSmithson 6y ago

Yes, but what if the cameras are not illegally placed, but in fact put there with a warrant. Then there is nothing illegal going on at all, but it would still be in LE interest to parallel how they know about the drugs, so that they can continue using the camera and maybe find out where the next shipment is going to be as well.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
Then the judge would be aware of the warrant, and wouldnt throw the evidence away, because it would be obtained legally.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  Yes that's precisely my point - there would still be parallel construction but there would be nothing illegal

notduncansmith 6y ago

It might be worth coming up with an example that doesn’t illustrate an end that may justify precisely the means you describe. In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful.

kls 6y ago
But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law by breaking the law and it has set a very bad precedence that the police now go looking for crime. Because if they "believe" you are a criminal there is a better than average chance they are going to find something no matter how petty or insignificant. The point being, it does not matter the end result, it never justifies the action in retrospect as the person is and should be assumed innocent until legal evidence of a crime is uncovered. If it was obtained illegally all evidence even parallel construction should be tossed out for the taint it bring with it.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.
  - kls 6y ago
    While it may be move convincing, the hope is for people to see that these rights exist for a reason and that even in the presence of mortal outrage, they should still be defended. Because someone out there, is morally outraged at the way you live your life and would make something illegal that you do if they could. That is the whole point of the bill of rights and the amendments. Is to guarantee a base level of freedom no matter how the winds change. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to get. Maybe it's because I am older and boy have I seen the winds change, but it only takes one swing away from your viewpoint to understand how important they are.

_ah 6y ago

This already happens. I once had a conversation with a Homeland Security officer at a backyard BBQ, and he said: "When you see on the news that Police randomly stopped a car and discovered a huge cache of drugs... you don't actually think that's random, do you?" TBH I had never thought about it before but now I recognize this pattern everywhere.

bonestamp2 6y ago
Yes, it already happens and that's why it's a problem. If they discovered that they should "randomly" pull over that vehicle through evidence that was gathered illegally, then it should also be considered a violation of the 4th amendment... which is likely why the EFF has launched this project.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  It would be interesting - and likely amusing - to extrapolate how many people must be driving around with huge caches of drugs, based on an assumption that purportedly unrelated traffic stops (or equivalent) were in fact random samples.
  - stanfordkid 6y ago
    I really do think a "google maps" for police activity needs to be created -- including every single arrest, prosecution , subsequent legal claim... you should be able to rate police officers like restaurants on Yelp
    - pc86 6y ago
      My local courthouse is rated on Yelp. In a shocking turn of events nobody could have ever predicted, it has 1 star.
gonzo41 6y ago
That doesn't mean those stops aren't base on intel gained via legal warrants. It's more likely the police are trying to protect a source, either a person or technical means that is providing them greater information.