3 ms·
> not been gathered in line with due process Well, that looks about right to me. I don't see how you can mount a valid prosecution based on evidence derived fr
by denton-scratch 2y ago
> not been gathered in line with due process
Well, that looks about right to me. I don't see how you can mount a valid prosecution based on evidence derived from a giant hack.
- Thiez 2y agoGenerally evidence gathered by the authorities may not be tainted, to discourage the police from breaking the law to gather evidence. This restriction does not usually apply to evidence collected by private citizens. In other words, if a burglar finds the dead bodies in your cellar, that evidence is admissable.
- denton-scratch 2y agoDepends where you are. US law doesn't apply everywhere. Also, I'd guess that even in the USA, evidence produced by a burglar can be challenged on the grounds that it isn't what it purports to be. I suspect that US chain-of-custody rules etc. are meant for broader purposes than just controlling police corruption. The police are not the only people who can manipulate evidence.
- Thiez 2y agoI'm not in or from the US either. It's a common rule though. The word of a burglar alone hopefully isn't enough for a conviction anywhere, but it should be sufficient for a warrant in sane jurisdictions.