3 ms·
In such a hypothetical scenario would the police then be required to return the cocaine? Furthermore, would the owners of the cocaine be expemt from future pros
by cup 13y ago
In such a hypothetical scenario would the police then be required to return the cocaine? Furthermore, would the owners of the cocaine be expemt from future prosecution. I mean, whats stopping the police from tailing them and waiting a few weeks before re-arresting them?
- dietrichepp 13y agoI am no legal expert, but the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to discourage police from illegally gathering evidence, not to provide relief. See WARDEN v. HAYDEN, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) > Just as the suppression of evidence does not require the return of such items as contraband, the introduction of "mere evidence" does not entitle the State to its retention if it is being wrongfully withheld. Pp. 307-308. So just because the cocaine can't be used as evidence, doesn't mean that the police have to give it back -- it's still contraband. Maybe they would destroy it if they have no other use for it. But Alice would get her car back, if it were seized with the cocaine. As for future prosecution, nobody is exempt, but the prosecution would probably have to come up with new charges (due the fifth amendment double jeopardy clause). Waiting a few weeks would not change legal circumstances and a judge would see right through such trickery, but if I were Alice or Bob I would keep my nose clean for a while.
- darkarmani 13y ago> In such a hypothetical scenario would the police then be required to return the cocaine? No. They don't have to return illegal contraband found during an improper search, but it cannot be used as evidence in a trial against them.