> So, how do you argue with someone that the police should use inferior (but legal) evidence to put the (possibly wrong) person away, instead of using more accu

> So, how do you argue with someone that the police should use inferior (but legal) evidence to put the (possibly wrong) person away, instead of using more accurate (but 4'th amendment violating) evidence to get the right person? ------------------- If the standard of the inferior evidence didn't exceed reasonable doubt, then the person shouldn't have been put away anyway. The evidence simply isn't strong enough. It might perhaps be strong enough to get a warrant for further information, but if we're arguing for the worst case then we'll assume it's not. If the evidence is strong enough to place the person beyond a reasonable doubt, then the value of the extra information goes down dramatically. There are situations where you just can't get sufficient evidence given the resources you can legally, ethically and practically use. At which point you have to choose: Do you lower your standard of evidence, weaken your liberties by allowing unethical or illegal practices, or let someone guilty go free? Personally, I favour the latter option. But there are, at least, three different answers that someone might have - and if I had to argue with someone about police procedure then I'd be inclined to explore the options and the potential consequences of each.