4 ms·
I agree that dismissing evidence that was gathered illegally is reasonable, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Even if illegally gathered evidence could be ide
by MereInterest 4y ago
I agree that dismissing evidence that was gathered illegally is reasonable, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Even if illegally gathered evidence could be identified and excluded from use in trial, it does nothing to redress the wrong that was committed in gathering that evidence in the first place.
Namely, loss of privacy is a harm in itself, not merely something that may lead to further harm. The exclusionary rule can prevent further harm, but cannot restore the peace of mind and security that was lost.
- tptacek 4y agoOK, but worth keeping in mind that much of Europe (for instance) doesn't have an exclusionary rule; whatever redress you have, it does not include not having the illegitimate evidence weaponized against you.
- MereInterest 4y agoI think that both are entirely necessary, and neither is sufficient on their own. Excluding evidence that has been illegally collected is necessary, as otherwise there would be an incentive for officers to collect the evidence anyways, if the career growth from cases outweighs the punishment. Redressing the breach of privacy is necessary, as otherwise an officer could harass an individual through unreasonable searches, each time claiming that they believed the search to be justified.
- anticensor 4y agoAlso to mention, illegal evidence and evidence collected by committing a crime are two separate concepts. The former refers to a violation of evidential procedures.