3 ms·
So if you really want to nab someone but you don't care what the charge is, you can threaten them with a 4th Amendment-violating search, which induces them to d
by krispyfi 1mo ago
So if you really want to nab someone but you don't care what the charge is, you can threaten them with a 4th Amendment-violating search, which induces them to destroy evidence. Pretty neat trick.
IANAL, but I don't think it's controversial to say that people who treat the Bill of Rights like an obstacle to be hacked around probably shouldn't be in positions of power.
- otterley 1mo ago(IAAL, this is not legal advice, consult your own attorney) If you destroy evidence, that’s your own fault. You can’t blame law enforcement for inducing you to commit crimes they didn’t ask you to commit. That’s just silly and no court will entertain that theory. To protect your rights under the 4th Amendment, you refuse the search. If law enforcement conducts the search anyway and a court finds the search was unlawful, the court will exclude the evidence found in the search from consideration in the trial along with any evidence that flows from that. Neither the jury nor the court will be able to use it.
- dcow 1mo agoHave you heard of entrapment?
- KingMob 1mo agoIANAL, but I've heard that entrapment defenses are way harder to use, and much rarer, in reality than on TV. First, you frequently require a judge's permission to even argue it. But the real burden is showing that your client would not have committed the crime without the effect of the police. A cop posing as a drug dealer and offering you drugs as you pass them in the park every day doesn't count; a cop hounding you for months to commit wire fraud because they mistakenly believe you're in a criminal org might, though.
- otterley 1mo agoYes. That’s why I added the predicate “crimes they didn’t ask you to commit.”
- krispyfi 1mo agoYou are describing the world as it exists, while I'm saying that we should have a better one.