4 ms·
Yeah. The second hand things I've heard about drug busts tell me that the steps are generally: 1) Cops have a pretty good suspicion who it is 2) Cops falsify
by jbooth 13y ago
Yeah. The second hand things I've heard about drug busts tell me that the steps are generally:
1) Cops have a pretty good suspicion who it is
2) Cops falsify evidence to get search warrant
3) Search warrant executed, they have the drugs, go to trial with the drugs
This case seems to be a little more outlandish than most, though.
- rayiner 13y agoYou read too much goddamn internet if you think that's how things "generally" go down.
- jbooth 13y agoStories I heard on the matter were not on the internet -- next you'll tell me that police would never lie on the stand? (really not hating on police here, I know it's a tough job)
- dkersten 13y agoI personally know a guy who almost went down for manslaughter which the police knew he couldn't have committed (he had been arrested for something minor on the other side of the country at the about same time the incident occurred). It took him about a year and a half to clear his name even though the police had documentation proving he couldn't have been there. They wanted him to go down for it that bad. They also beat him during questioning and tried to pressure him into a confession. He's a real quiet harmless guy too... So... There is NO WAY I'd trust the police.
- rayiner 13y agoThere is difference between "police would never" and police "generally" falsifying evidence.
- jbooth 13y agoOk, fine, we'll never know the proportions. But you can get a confidential informant to say whatever you want for $100, and that can be enough for a search warrant. Then you don't call the shady CI at trial and work from the bust results instead. No way to know how common it is, but I could see that method actually being good police work if they're putting away someone who needs to go away.
- ballard 13y agoCases fall apart if evidence is acquired improperly.
- gojomo 13y ago[parallel construction] The real original evidence is not discussed. Only the (sometimes very "lucky") later stop, suspicion, search.
- jbooth 13y agoYup, fruit of a poisonous tree can be worked around if the DA wants busts enough.
- gojomo 13y agoRecent documents, indicating DEA/IRS agents were trained to hide the original surveillance evidence, suggest even the prosecutor might not know the true genesis of a particular bust.
- ewoodrich 13y agoParallel construction requires you to acquire the same evidence in a lawful manner that is not "tainted" by the inadmissible evidence. If they cannot find admissible means to accomplish this, they cannot use the evidence in court. It's not some magical way to make up evidence like some seem to think.
- strathmeyer 13y agoYou're right, the police lying is the magical way that evidence is made up. None of the police have a problem with it, anymore.
- gojomo 13y agoOnce they know for sure they'll find something, it's easy to bootstrap a stop and search from "little white lies", about subjective or unverifiable things. (The car was 'erratic'; there was a 'smell'.) The lies no longer have any risk, when they're only used to set up sure things. After the search hits paydirt, the petty fabrications used as a cover story to create probable cause seem credible, and the perp's denials flimsy and self-interested. And since the prosecutors and courts only ever hear the surface story – the original illegal evidence is never revealed to them – they don't even know they're looking at a "parallel construction".