5 ms·
It is a little confusing, they ruled that the search was not legitimate, but this didn’t end up helping the defendant? I’m definitely missing an important nuanc
by bee_rider 4mo ago
It is a little confusing, they ruled that the search was not legitimate, but this didn’t end up helping the defendant? I’m definitely missing an important nuance here but I’m not sure what it is…
- sidewndr46 4mo agoThe judge doesn't care if the law was violated in collecting evidence.
- dylan604 4mo agoMaybe this particular judge didn't for whatever reasoning, but judges definitely prevent a prosecutor from introducing evidence based on how it was collected. This is why concepts like "fruit of poisonous tree" and "parallel construction" exist.
- harimau777 4mo agoDoesn't parallel construcction mean that judges actually don't care how evidence was collected? They can't possibly care that much if they are fine with a fig leaf like parallel construction.
- sidewndr46 4mo agoParallel construction means the judge doesn't know.
- NoGravitas 4mo agoOr can at least plausibly pretend not to.
- sidewndr46 4mo agoI guess that is true, although you'd be hard pressed to prove that. I don't think any court would hear a complaint about a lower court or adjacent court having participated willingly in parallel construction.
- Spooky23 4mo agoNo. Parallel construction means they have an illegal bugging device in the courthouse bathroom, and use a conversation that you have with your attorney to identify a witness. Then they independently arrest the witness for something and pressure them to testify.
- superxpro12 4mo agoBasically... yeah. It's using illegally obtained evidence (like an NSA wiretap) to point the detectives in the right direction they would have otherwise never probabilistic-ly searched.
- qingcharles 4mo agoI had a judge once tell me that the police absolutely have the right to commit crimes to gather evidence in an investigation. (mostly true -- for instance an officer can generally commit innumerable felonies as long as nothing they do violates your personal constitutional rights -- rarely is evidence thrown out because it was obtained in violation of a statute unless that statute includes a provision for exclusion, e.g. wiretapping laws)
- sidewndr46 4mo agoThe individual who would prosecute them also needs to work with them to prosecute civilians. So pretty much, so long as it isn't murder.
- qingcharles 4mo agoExactly this.
- igjjigjk 4mo ago[dead]
- 201p 4mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception
- Refreeze5224 4mo agoI think they left it to the lower court to decide if the search was legitimate in particular. They ruled in general that geo-fence warrants are not OK. Not a lawyer though!
- adastra22 4mo agoThey ruled that this kind of search, going forward, is illegal. But this wasn’t clear at the time of the investigation, and the cops did what they genuinely thought was best practices for respecting the 4th amendment. So evidence in this case (and prior cases) is ok, but not in the future.