3 ms·
There's a simple way around that: any evidence found for crimes, can only be used to prosecute the original crime involving the law why the warrant was issued.
by Fnoord 5y ago
There's a simple way around that: any evidence found for crimes, can only be used to prosecute the original crime involving the law why the warrant was issued. Everyone else is offtopic, and therefore discarded. I know, there's parallel evidence, but the fact its possible doesn't mean such should be used.
- krisoft 5y agoIt becomes very hard to discuss these things when we are mixing up what we think the law should be with what the law is. What you are saying is a reasonable proposal, but it is not how it works now. And it is very unlikely to change in the close future.
- Fnoord 5y agoI don't know how US law is, but in The Netherlands this would've been unlawful evidence [1]. [1] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onrechtmatig_verkregen_bewijs https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onrechtmatig_verkregen_bewijs
- vel0city 5y agoThe US has a similar idea of illegally obtained evidence, its a very common concept. This is different from the above suggestion, which is essentially any unrelated evidence of crimes found while executing an unrelated search warrant is void. For example, a warrant is issued to find documents related to criminal fraud, while searching someone's office for materials related to the fraud they find a pile of illegal drugs. In the above suggestion, they wouldn't be able to prosecute drug violations as they discovered the drugs during an otherwise lawful search but its unrelated to the crime the warrant was issued for. The original search wasn't illegal, just that the second crime wasn't related to the issued warrant.