10 ms·
They weren't necessarily lying, -just omitting the cause prior to the traffic violation. You seriously need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_o
by 300bps 13y ago
They weren't necessarily lying, -just omitting the cause prior to the traffic violation.
You seriously need to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is tainted as well...Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.
You cannot conceal the source of evidence that leads you to other evidence.
- deveac 13y agoThank you for the link 300bps. Edit: So this seems to speak to a bit of what the main link was talking about. This extension of the exclusionary rule doesn't speak to whether or not omission of first cause is lying (under the legal definition), but rather about how if the first cause evidence was obtained illegally, then it cannot be used. The crux of this issue seems to be that the prosecution is not volunteering information that might trigger the defense to look for Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in the first place (and does that cross the line into illegality, thus preventing evaluation). I would hope it does...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 13y agoI think (and hope) you're right that this is a straightforward application of the poisonous tree doctrine, but you should be aware that the doctrine is not quite a clean-cut as you make it out to be. One big exception to it is "inevitable disclosure". If a traffic stop is otherwise lawful, and a normal police officer acting in the lawful confines of their authority would have otherwise discovered e.g. the drug stash in the car (for instance, because it was in plain site in the back seat), the Poisonous Tree doctrine probably doesn't exclude the evidence. That's the tricky thing about the Reuters DEA revelation. Some drug offenders probably are cavalier about displaying evidence in the cars because the likelihood of their being stopped is low. Here, domestic surveillance is allowing the police to drastically increase the odds that they'll make a fortuitous traffic stop. What would not work, in my understanding of the story, is for an intelligence intercept to establish the legal basis for stopping and searching a car.
- haberman 13y agoI think you mean "inevitable discovery."
- ledge 13y agoThat's the tricky thing about the Reuters DEA revelation. Some drug offenders probably are cavalier about displaying evidence in the cars because the likelihood of their being stopped is low. Maybe it wouldn't even matter if the drugs were in plain sight? The cop could likely just use the old "I smell marijuana" trick and then he would 'inevitably discover' the drug dealer's stash, no matter where in the car it's hidden.
- apalmer 13y agoI completely understand the technical distinction, however I find the argument hypertechnical and completely violating the spirit of the law. Honestly seems like the whole point of SOD is to get around the poison fruit guideline.
- tptacek 13y agoI agree, it really seems like they're trying to come as close to the line as they can without obviously crossing it, and I think it's clear they did cross it. Also, I don't see any virtue to secrecy in this case; unlike organized Al Qaeda terrorism prevention or foreign hostile adversaries or counterproliferation, the tactics we're using in the "war on drugs" are a public policy matter that benefit from public discussion.