4 ms·

From TFA: "...said the Menlo Park police department violated his client's rights during the internal affairs investigation" I actually support his getting his

by yid 13y ago

From TFA: "...said the Menlo Park police department violated his client's rights during the internal affairs investigation" I actually support his getting his job back, because it seems to have been found that the police department overstepped their boundaries in their investigation of him. If that is indeed true, then it's imperative that any illegal evidence against him should be discarded.

auctiontheory 13y ago
At some level, if you have enough defense lawyers, it becomes literally impossible to conduct a detailed investigation without forgetting to dot an i or cross a t somewhere. I don't know whether they violated his rights or not, but it's pretty clear from the reporting (all of which I've read, since he makes $150K as my neighborhood cop) that he's guilty in the pure sense of "he did it." And they originally discovered him in some other context - not while illegally pursuing him. (While "they" continue to illegally tap your phone, and your emails, and mine.)
- bmelton 13y ago
  There's legal theory around this, and it's fairly well established, though often somewhat murky. The concept is "inevitable discovery". The defense attorney can bring up claims that the evidence was ill-gotten, and if the claim is upheld, then the judge can throw out everything gained afterward, unless they can prove that it would have been discovered unrelated to the ill-gotten loot. For example, if a police officer searches your home without a warrant and finds the murder weapon, that murder weapon ceases to exist, legally, and the suspect will likely get away scot free. However, if a different officer pulls him over for a DUI a week later, not as a result of information provided by the unlawful search, and finds blood in the back seat of the car, which leads to an arrest, prosecution could claim that they would have obtained a warrant to his home that would then have likely surfaced the murder weapon. Edit, all that was fairly random rambling, re-reading it in context, but what I meant to say was that I agree, and that his confession ought to be enough grounds to keep his termination permanent.

by yid 13y ago

auctiontheory 13y ago

At some level, if you have enough defense lawyers, it becomes literally impossible to conduct a detailed investigation without forgetting to dot an i or cross a t somewhere. I don't know whether they violated his rights or not, but it's pretty clear from the reporting (all of which I've read, since he makes $150K as my neighborhood cop) that he's guilty in the pure sense of "he did it." And they originally discovered him in some other context - not while illegally pursuing him. (While "they" continue to illegally tap your phone, and your emails, and mine.)

bmelton 13y ago
There's legal theory around this, and it's fairly well established, though often somewhat murky. The concept is "inevitable discovery". The defense attorney can bring up claims that the evidence was ill-gotten, and if the claim is upheld, then the judge can throw out everything gained afterward, unless they can prove that it would have been discovered unrelated to the ill-gotten loot. For example, if a police officer searches your home without a warrant and finds the murder weapon, that murder weapon ceases to exist, legally, and the suspect will likely get away scot free. However, if a different officer pulls him over for a DUI a week later, not as a result of information provided by the unlawful search, and finds blood in the back seat of the car, which leads to an arrest, prosecution could claim that they would have obtained a warrant to his home that would then have likely surfaced the murder weapon. Edit, all that was fairly random rambling, re-reading it in context, but what I meant to say was that I agree, and that his confession ought to be enough grounds to keep his termination permanent.