4 ms·
That’s a perfectly logical stance to take, but I think it hinges on : ”Now, if officers use legal loopholes to take illegally-acquired evidence and somehow mak
by balderdash 3y ago
That’s a perfectly logical stance to take, but I think it hinges on :
”Now, if officers use legal loopholes to take illegally-acquired evidence and somehow make it legal, that's a practice that should be rooted out and those involved prosecuted.”
If in practice illegal practices, are not rooted-out or prosecuted, and actually condoned, I think one would need to look askance at the entire concept…
- bshipp 3y agoThat makes perfect sense. I'm no lawyer and am only discussing this out of idle curiosity, so I'm sure my comments were a naive take. The situation I'm envisioning is an audio recording from a 2-party consent state outlining the existence of evidence. Since that cannot be the legal basis of a warrant, an officer might wander through the neighborhood talking with associated citizens to try and independently establish the need for a warrant based on various witness statements. No evidence has been falsified or created out of thin air, and there's no hope of a conviction if the suspected building doesn't contain damning evidence. However, I fully recognize how such a process might be abused and the need for a very firm legal hand to avoid accidentally becoming an authoritarian state.
- rurounijones 3y agoThe officer has no probable cause to do what you suggest without the illegally obtained information in the first place.