3 ms·

The limitations of section 1983 to let you sue cops for violating your rights are not the fault of the exclusionary rule. Without the exclusionary rule the 4th

The limitations of section 1983 to let you sue cops for violating your rights are not the fault of the exclusionary rule. Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. Yes, some people who committed crimes go unpunished because the state fucked up and couldn't manage to protect their legal rights while investigating and arresting them. We should place a high burden on the state to dramatically disincentivize it from violating our rights, even the rights of people who commit crimes.

lesuorac 3y ago
> Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. I mean if I trespass on your property and take a handgun and give it to police as evidence of the murder weapon they can use that to convict you. You might have trouble with a civil suit of trespassing against me but I doubt a prosector couldn't also try me for trespassing. The exclusionary rule is not in the constitution. The 4th amendment does not describe what happens if its violated and the fruit of the poisonous tree is entirely made up by the court system in 1920 [1] over a century after the constitution was written. Prior to that point there wasn't a need of the fruit of the poisonous tree because if even if you had a warrant you couldn't use my personal possessions as evidence against me [2]. Although I don't really agree with either system. You should be able to use warrants to get personal property but taking person property without a warrant should receive the same penalty no matter who takes it. i.e. Cops should risk jail time for breaking the law like everybody else. Obviously if a cop radios their supervisor to verify they have a warrant and the supervisor lies then the supervisor is on the hook and not the cop. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._Uni... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule

lesuorac 3y ago

> Without the exclusionary rule the 4th amendment doesn't really exist. Cops could just violate your 4th amendment rights and then either arrest you if they find evidence of a crime or go on their merry way. I mean if I trespass on your property and take a handgun and give it to police as evidence of the murder weapon they can use that to convict you. You might have trouble with a civil suit of trespassing against me but I doubt a prosector couldn't also try me for trespassing. The exclusionary rule is not in the constitution. The 4th amendment does not describe what happens if its violated and the fruit of the poisonous tree is entirely made up by the court system in 1920 [1] over a century after the constitution was written. Prior to that point there wasn't a need of the fruit of the poisonous tree because if even if you had a warrant you couldn't use my personal possessions as evidence against me [2]. Although I don't really agree with either system. You should be able to use warrants to get personal property but taking person property without a warrant should receive the same penalty no matter who takes it. i.e. Cops should risk jail time for breaking the law like everybody else. Obviously if a cop radios their supervisor to verify they have a warrant and the supervisor lies then the supervisor is on the hook and not the cop. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._Uni... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_evidence_rule