5 ms·

This is great news. Kudos to the ACLU. And I'm happy to say it came about as a result of a note I posted on Twitter in January: https://twitter.com/declanm/sta

• greenyoda 12y ago
  Kudos to you, too! Here's the link from declan's tweet: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1650231.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/16502... "James L. Thomas appeals convictions and sentences for sexual battery and petit theft, contending that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, was introduced against him at trial. We reverse and remand for a new trial." So, because the police wanted to keep their use of the Stingray secret, they entered the accused rapist's apartment without obtaining a warrant, which caused the evidence they gathered, including the victim's phone, to fall under the exclusionary rule. The defendant will get a new trial, and may go free and commit other crimes, because of the police's preference for secrecy over the rule of law.
  • deciplex 12y ago
    You forgot the next step: "Thereby helping, in some small way, to (further?) turn the public against the doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."
    • joe_the_user 12y ago
      Well, Like freedom of speech, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree principle matters most for cases and situations that look bad. The only effective counter to the talk radio blow-hard shouting "he got off on a technicality again!!!" is to educate the public. Otherwise, we have just abandoned the principle that a defendant needs to be not just guilty but justly proven guilty to be punished.
      • deciplex 12y ago
        Not the only counter, just one of them. Another effective counter is to point out that, since the public airwaves are public property and a limited resource, organizations can't be allowed to buy up the whole spectrum and fill the air with bullshit as they please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
        • vaadu 12y ago
          The fairness doctrine is being pushed solely by those that want to muzzle free speech. They had no problems when the only source of news was the left wing 'mainstream' media and newspapers. But now that the news isn't being controlled by the liberal elite they cry foul.
          • deciplex 12y ago
            Bullshit. And the fairness doctrine doesn't apply to e.g. newspapers, internet, cable television, or any other media that doesn't have a technical restriction that limits the number of participants in the given medium. The fairness doctrine applies to e.g. open airwaves, and is about recognizing that when the government sells frequency spectrum to the highest bidder, it has a responsibility to regulate the artificial monopoly it just created. And when the fuck was the news ever controlled by any liberal elite. Here's a helpful link: http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/conservative-forums.html http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/conservative-forums.html I suggest you make an account there. You'll fit right in.
      • Natsu 12y ago
        There's also the opposite scenario, in some countries they would punish both parties and there is no exclusion rule, as I understand it.
      • Shivetya 12y ago
        Actually the people pushing the he got off on a technicality will be police sycophants, talk radio tends to drive for ratings but quite a few hosts across the country are not blind friends of the police, far from it. Warrant less searches are never looked upon favorably, let alone no knock warrants, and finally the war on drugs isn't the most supported topic. what you do have though is a very organized group out there whose job is to support the actions of the police regardless of how distasteful some may fine it, they will vilify the victim and perpetrators of crime to distract from abuses of police power. This of course leads to political pressure and chest thumping from hard on crime (at any cost) candidates.