5 ms·

It's mentioned in the linked article -- he was caught on video hitting and kicking a woman 117 times but because the video was gathered without getting a warran

by nacs 2y ago

It's mentioned in the linked article -- he was caught on video hitting and kicking a woman 117 times but because the video was gathered without getting a warrant, it wasn't admissible in court and he got away with a misdemeanor charge. He then went to beat another woman and got a year long jail sentence. A real piece of work.

jajko 2y ago
What s the general motivation in democracies to completely ignore blatant evidence of a serious crime unless ie consent or warrant is given? Where is the threshold, ie for murder this sort of evidence should be OK no? Manslaughter? I guess anything flies for terrorism these days. Ie if he kicked her to death, I can't imagine judge ignoring video evidence and letting him go.
- infecto 2y ago
  Ideally it keeps checks and balances in place. If the evidence was admissible then there is a lack of balance, police would have a lot of incentive to search private property all the time to catch someone in a crime.
- dahart 2y ago
  Nobody wants to ignore valid evidence of criminal guilt. In the US, the motivation is to uphold your constitutional fourth amendment rights, and implicitly to protect you against police and government abuse, of which there is a long and sordid history. It’s a tradeoff, and while it can lead to a few criminals getting away with things, it can also prevent sending innocent people to prison for life, or to the electric chair. There are a bunch of exceptions to the exclusionary rule [2], and courts do not necessarily apply the rule indiscriminately. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
- ecshafer 2y ago
  The general motivation is the existence of rights. We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. Part of this, is that the government can't illegally infringe upon those rights. If they think that we are doing X they need a warrant to search our property. Where is the threshold is actually an interesting question. Since if for example the man killed the woman, but the video was illegally taken then it would be inadmissable. BUT police are known to construct cases around illegal evidence called parallel construction. So for example the police get an illegal video, they look for evidence find that a woman is missing, get a warrant to then find the video. Where is the threshold I think the US has shown that the threshold is national security. No issues drone striking someone in a foreign country.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    > We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. The political realist take is that “rights” are not some abstract, static group of protections but the direct result of political activity. Women didn’t have the right to vote until they did. People had the right to drink until they didn’t, and then they did again. 18 year olds didn’t have the right to vote until they did. Secondly, one person’s right usually takes away something from another group or the government. The First Amendment takes away the ability for the government to punish speech they don’t like. The 13th amendment takes away a person’s right to own a slave. Previously, the deciding factor was force or capital. It sounds reductionist but “rights” is more of a description of how the political/legal system actually works than some abstract notion handed down from Heaven. What this means is that this list of rights can expand and contract with time, and it is in our interest to expand it as much as possible for as many people as possible. This takes active political participation because the default is for those who can command force (the government) and those with capital (wealthy people/corporations) to have power.
- metabagel 2y ago
  It's not a problem if police obtain a warrant. It's also OK if evidence is discovered while not performing an illegal search. For instance, if a police officer knocks on your door, you open it, and they see something in your apartment which gives them probable cause of the commission of a crime.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Notably, when he offended again, the court in that case ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply for probation revocation hearings, unless the police misconduct was egregious. So, the video was admitted in that case. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-chahal https://casetext.com/case/people-v-chahal Side note: California's Truth-in-Evidence clause in 1982 Proposition 8 forbids state exclusion of evidence requirements which are more stringent than that required under the federal Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_California_Proposition_8

by nacs 2y ago

jajko 2y ago

What s the general motivation in democracies to completely ignore blatant evidence of a serious crime unless ie consent or warrant is given? Where is the threshold, ie for murder this sort of evidence should be OK no? Manslaughter? I guess anything flies for terrorism these days. Ie if he kicked her to death, I can't imagine judge ignoring video evidence and letting him go.

infecto 2y ago
Ideally it keeps checks and balances in place. If the evidence was admissible then there is a lack of balance, police would have a lot of incentive to search private property all the time to catch someone in a crime.
dahart 2y ago
Nobody wants to ignore valid evidence of criminal guilt. In the US, the motivation is to uphold your constitutional fourth amendment rights, and implicitly to protect you against police and government abuse, of which there is a long and sordid history. It’s a tradeoff, and while it can lead to a few criminals getting away with things, it can also prevent sending innocent people to prison for life, or to the electric chair. There are a bunch of exceptions to the exclusionary rule [2], and courts do not necessarily apply the rule indiscriminately. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Limitations [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...
ecshafer 2y ago
The general motivation is the existence of rights. We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. Part of this, is that the government can't illegally infringe upon those rights. If they think that we are doing X they need a warrant to search our property. Where is the threshold is actually an interesting question. Since if for example the man killed the woman, but the video was illegally taken then it would be inadmissable. BUT police are known to construct cases around illegal evidence called parallel construction. So for example the police get an illegal video, they look for evidence find that a woman is missing, get a warrant to then find the video. Where is the threshold I think the US has shown that the threshold is national security. No issues drone striking someone in a foreign country.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  > We are born with god-given inalienable rights, constitutions exist to protect those rights from the government. The political realist take is that “rights” are not some abstract, static group of protections but the direct result of political activity. Women didn’t have the right to vote until they did. People had the right to drink until they didn’t, and then they did again. 18 year olds didn’t have the right to vote until they did. Secondly, one person’s right usually takes away something from another group or the government. The First Amendment takes away the ability for the government to punish speech they don’t like. The 13th amendment takes away a person’s right to own a slave. Previously, the deciding factor was force or capital. It sounds reductionist but “rights” is more of a description of how the political/legal system actually works than some abstract notion handed down from Heaven. What this means is that this list of rights can expand and contract with time, and it is in our interest to expand it as much as possible for as many people as possible. This takes active political participation because the default is for those who can command force (the government) and those with capital (wealthy people/corporations) to have power.
metabagel 2y ago
It's not a problem if police obtain a warrant. It's also OK if evidence is discovered while not performing an illegal search. For instance, if a police officer knocks on your door, you open it, and they see something in your apartment which gives them probable cause of the commission of a crime.
metabagel 2y ago
Notably, when he offended again, the court in that case ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply for probation revocation hearings, unless the police misconduct was egregious. So, the video was admitted in that case. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-chahal https://casetext.com/case/people-v-chahal Side note: California's Truth-in-Evidence clause in 1982 Proposition 8 forbids state exclusion of evidence requirements which are more stringent than that required under the federal Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_California_Proposition_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_California_Proposition_8