7 ms·

Parallel construction is the term for using a covert, inadmissible method to get your suspect, then using that illicit information to build a legitimate case th

Parallel construction is the term for using a covert, inadmissible method to get your suspect, then using that illicit information to build a legitimate case that you can present in court. Perhaps the fact that they were unable to build that legitimate case means he is innocent. Or perhaps they just got too lazy with the wrong judge this time.

duxup 2y ago
I think there's a difference from "parallel construction" and what could have happened in this case. If they felt this guy was their suspect, there's nothing against using AI to determine that they should focus on that guy and look closer. They could instigate further, even (for example) run across someone who actually told them "yeah he said he shot a dude that day" and establish other facts and legally get a warrant.
- ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
  That's parallel construction.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - duxup 2y ago
    Vs just "investigation"?
  - Spivak 2y ago
    It's only parallel construction if the original means of determining the suspect was unconstitutional.
  - wbl 2y ago
    No it's not. Parallel construction is when you hear Joe has coke in his car, and choose to follow Joe, pull him over when he speeds, and develop PC for a search from that. The grounds for the search of the car are independent. Here the AI has primed them to falsely recognize the guy. There's no independence the way there is with parallel construction.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      I don’t think this priming theory is workable. If some witness on the street gives the police a handful of names, and they discover she didn’t actually witness the crime, are they now prohibited from investigating those people because they’re “primed”?
      - wbl 2y ago
        Facial identification is particularly difficult to do right. If you lean on people at all they will pick the closest match rather than admit they don't know. Not from dishonesty, it's just that we're not that good at recognizing strangers.
    - gamblor956 2y ago
      Your example is not parallel construction either. If you hear that Joe has coke in his car you already have probable cause to search Joe's car. You don't need to wait until he speeds, since speeding wouldn't give you a reason to search his vehicle. Parallel construction would be: you pulled Joe over for [whatever reason] and searched his car without probable cause (maybe he seemed shifty or he was being a dick) and found coke, so you subsequently went to an informant who told you that he witnessed Joe selling coke out of his car earlier on the day of the search (which would have given you probable cause to search his car if you had talked to the informant before pulling Joe over). The basis of parallel construction is that a real investigation would have uncovered the evidence anyway. What many people don't get is that law enforcement actually has to do the legwork of a real investigation (but knowing what to look for, and where, etc.) to show that the excluded evidence should be made admissible. It's a remedy for law enforcement to cure procedural violations of due process under the Fourth Amendment.
      - wbl 2y ago
        I understood it to come in when the police don't want to admit intelligence from foreign sources in drug cases also.
        2y ago
542354234235 2y ago
Not exactly. It is used to get to certain stage of an investigation, and before proceeding, other means are found to get to that same stage. In this case, parallel construction would have been done after AI identification but before getting the warrant. The parallel construction would/should have been used to justify the warrant and make the search legal. They didn’t do that, instead choosing to write the warrant in a way that was misleading at best, lying at worst, about justification for the search. Now the results of the search are being thrown out, which included finding the murder weapon in his house. So it doesn’t sound like he is likely innocent.
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
  A gun. How do we know it was the murder weapon.

duxup 2y ago

I think there's a difference from "parallel construction" and what could have happened in this case. If they felt this guy was their suspect, there's nothing against using AI to determine that they should focus on that guy and look closer. They could instigate further, even (for example) run across someone who actually told them "yeah he said he shot a dude that day" and establish other facts and legally get a warrant.

ThrowawayTestr 2y ago
That's parallel construction.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- duxup 2y ago
  Vs just "investigation"?
- Spivak 2y ago
  It's only parallel construction if the original means of determining the suspect was unconstitutional.
- wbl 2y ago
  No it's not. Parallel construction is when you hear Joe has coke in his car, and choose to follow Joe, pull him over when he speeds, and develop PC for a search from that. The grounds for the search of the car are independent. Here the AI has primed them to falsely recognize the guy. There's no independence the way there is with parallel construction.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    I don’t think this priming theory is workable. If some witness on the street gives the police a handful of names, and they discover she didn’t actually witness the crime, are they now prohibited from investigating those people because they’re “primed”?
    - wbl 2y ago
      Facial identification is particularly difficult to do right. If you lean on people at all they will pick the closest match rather than admit they don't know. Not from dishonesty, it's just that we're not that good at recognizing strangers.
  - gamblor956 2y ago
    Your example is not parallel construction either. If you hear that Joe has coke in his car you already have probable cause to search Joe's car. You don't need to wait until he speeds, since speeding wouldn't give you a reason to search his vehicle. Parallel construction would be: you pulled Joe over for [whatever reason] and searched his car without probable cause (maybe he seemed shifty or he was being a dick) and found coke, so you subsequently went to an informant who told you that he witnessed Joe selling coke out of his car earlier on the day of the search (which would have given you probable cause to search his car if you had talked to the informant before pulling Joe over). The basis of parallel construction is that a real investigation would have uncovered the evidence anyway. What many people don't get is that law enforcement actually has to do the legwork of a real investigation (but knowing what to look for, and where, etc.) to show that the excluded evidence should be made admissible. It's a remedy for law enforcement to cure procedural violations of due process under the Fourth Amendment.
    - wbl 2y ago
      I understood it to come in when the police don't want to admit intelligence from foreign sources in drug cases also.
      - 2y ago

542354234235 2y ago

Not exactly. It is used to get to certain stage of an investigation, and before proceeding, other means are found to get to that same stage. In this case, parallel construction would have been done after AI identification but before getting the warrant. The parallel construction would/should have been used to justify the warrant and make the search legal. They didn’t do that, instead choosing to write the warrant in a way that was misleading at best, lying at worst, about justification for the search. Now the results of the search are being thrown out, which included finding the murder weapon in his house. So it doesn’t sound like he is likely innocent.

TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
A gun. How do we know it was the murder weapon.