> it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality (at least in this specific case). Assuming it was good in this case, and that the confession wasn't forced

> it's good that he didn't get off on a technicality (at least in this specific case). Assuming it was good in this case, and that the confession wasn't forced or some such, it's definitely not good in "big picture" terms. Making evidence acquired outside of what is laws inadmissible keeps law enforcement honest since there will be nothing to gain by breaking the rules, and it ensures that evidence is not tampered with and that people's rights are protected. Yes, these things sometimes let guilty people go free, but that's better than locking up innocent people. It sucks, but that's the reality of it.