10 ms·

Never understood the whole 'illegal privacy invasion' thing. Sure, it should be prosecuted if nothing was found, BUT if something is found, who cares how it was

Never understood the whole 'illegal privacy invasion' thing. Sure, it should be prosecuted if nothing was found, BUT if something is found, who cares how it was found? Unless it was planted of course, but AFAIK these two points are not connected. Can someone explain? EDIT: Not that it should not be prosecuted if something is found also, but WHY does the obtained evidence have to be dismissed?

cheald 12y ago
> but WHY does the obtained evidence have to be dismissed? Because to permit it effectively allows the end to justify the means. It would effectively permit law enforcement to ignore any and all laws they wanted to in the course of investigations in order to produce a favorable result. Why the hell would you only conduct searches within the bounds of the law if you could get the same result more expediently by just doing it however you want? If the police are willing to break the law, then who is going to enforce the consequences for doing so?
ianferrel 12y ago
Because incentives affect behavior. If you're allowed to use evidence from an illegal search, there's a huge incentive to keep doing illegal searches. If you want to curtail illegal searches, then you make such searches have a worse payoff.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  Why not have it that the court can use evidence that is presented to it. Those committing illegal searches should be prosecuted. Obviously the evidence of the illegal search means a conviction is highly likely. Ignoring evidence that points to the facts of a case seems futile if you wish to achieve justice.
ipsin 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree In short, if illegal techniques can be used to find evidence, and that evidence can be admitted, that's a pretty powerful reason to use illegal techniques. Barring that evidence is a way to prevent that abuse. Aggressively prosecuting the use of illegal techniques is another way, but given that we're not willing to prosecute prosecutors who railroad the innocent or government employees who torture other people, well, I'd say that's a non-starter.
- gear54rus 12y ago
  Thank you and others, I think I see now. Though I think retaliation (fines or maybe some jail time) would be more effective measure to prevent abuse than passive dismissal.
  - cheald 12y ago
    Fines against the police department are just fines against the taxpayers. Fines and jail time for individual officers are not possible because of qualified immunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
    - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
      That Wikipedia article doesn't say you can't prosecute, it just says that government workers are immune unless they reasonably should have known they were violating the constitution. The FBI know they need warrants, it's got to be FBI 101. When you take the stand in court you are an individual giving testimony though. The rule of law means that if you perjure yourself you should be tried.
  - yxhuvud 12y ago
    In practice, it is hard to get prosecutors to go after other prosecutors and/or police though. /lives in Sweden, where all evidence is admissible, but where the prosecutors should, but don't, go after their own on transgressions.
tgcordell 12y ago
I have a notion that you are not a natural born American citizen. Please, don't hold it against me if this assumption is wrong, but its the first thing that springs to my mind by your confusion proposed. I (and many others) view the government as a service by the people, for the people. It should adhere to the same laws and constraints that the people do in order to be kept in check and not all-powerful. One of these regulations is that citizens have powerful rights of ownership over their personal belongings and no one should be able to rifle through them without permission. Objects/data/articles/ideas can be held private for a multitude of reasons, and due process should be followed in order to gain access to these details. By removing the government's requirement to abide by this, you grant it an immense power to control and have knowledge of your life. That simply isn't necessary for the true function of government. Our original constitution and amendments attempted to protect its citizens from that fear.
- gear54rus 12y ago
  You are correct, I am not an American citizen at all :) I guess what you said is true for any government but does it really matter? They get what they want in the end. Be it Alexander, FBI or someone from my country.
  - tgcordell 12y ago
    I view that form of thinking as a very slippery slope. The government should get what it wants, but what it wants should be defined by the people. Currently, in the HN community, the view of what the government is doing and what the rules are aren't aligned. Thus, we are pushing for rectification. We've got to take a stand somewhere. That's the only way progress is made.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    > "They get what they want in the end" There is no "they". There are individuals who influence each other, each of whom may change their position depending on the position of others. History is replete with the consequences of changes inspired by advisers to advisers of leadership. There is no guarantee that you can influence outcomes, but it is exceedingly likely that if you believe that you cannot influence outcomes, then you will not.
llamataboot 12y ago
Because this is the basic deterrent against illegal searches. By making all evidence from an illegal search be thrown out, it offers a real-world incentive to not violate the 4th Amendment.
venomsnake 12y ago
2 words: General Warrants More than 2 words - If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. - Cardinal Richelieu You get into situation where you tell a prosecutor - find this guy guilty of something and throw him into jail.
destructaball 12y ago
The idea is that if you allow evidence which is gathered illegally you incentivize the gathering of evidence illegally
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

cheald 12y ago

> but WHY does the obtained evidence have to be dismissed? Because to permit it effectively allows the end to justify the means. It would effectively permit law enforcement to ignore any and all laws they wanted to in the course of investigations in order to produce a favorable result. Why the hell would you only conduct searches within the bounds of the law if you could get the same result more expediently by just doing it however you want? If the police are willing to break the law, then who is going to enforce the consequences for doing so?

ianferrel 12y ago

Because incentives affect behavior. If you're allowed to use evidence from an illegal search, there's a huge incentive to keep doing illegal searches. If you want to curtail illegal searches, then you make such searches have a worse payoff.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Why not have it that the court can use evidence that is presented to it. Those committing illegal searches should be prosecuted. Obviously the evidence of the illegal search means a conviction is highly likely. Ignoring evidence that points to the facts of a case seems futile if you wish to achieve justice.

ipsin 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree In short, if illegal techniques can be used to find evidence, and that evidence can be admitted, that's a pretty powerful reason to use illegal techniques. Barring that evidence is a way to prevent that abuse. Aggressively prosecuting the use of illegal techniques is another way, but given that we're not willing to prosecute prosecutors who railroad the innocent or government employees who torture other people, well, I'd say that's a non-starter.

gear54rus 12y ago
Thank you and others, I think I see now. Though I think retaliation (fines or maybe some jail time) would be more effective measure to prevent abuse than passive dismissal.
- cheald 12y ago
  Fines against the police department are just fines against the taxpayers. Fines and jail time for individual officers are not possible because of qualified immunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    That Wikipedia article doesn't say you can't prosecute, it just says that government workers are immune unless they reasonably should have known they were violating the constitution. The FBI know they need warrants, it's got to be FBI 101. When you take the stand in court you are an individual giving testimony though. The rule of law means that if you perjure yourself you should be tried.
- yxhuvud 12y ago
  In practice, it is hard to get prosecutors to go after other prosecutors and/or police though. /lives in Sweden, where all evidence is admissible, but where the prosecutors should, but don't, go after their own on transgressions.

tgcordell 12y ago

I have a notion that you are not a natural born American citizen. Please, don't hold it against me if this assumption is wrong, but its the first thing that springs to my mind by your confusion proposed. I (and many others) view the government as a service by the people, for the people. It should adhere to the same laws and constraints that the people do in order to be kept in check and not all-powerful. One of these regulations is that citizens have powerful rights of ownership over their personal belongings and no one should be able to rifle through them without permission. Objects/data/articles/ideas can be held private for a multitude of reasons, and due process should be followed in order to gain access to these details. By removing the government's requirement to abide by this, you grant it an immense power to control and have knowledge of your life. That simply isn't necessary for the true function of government. Our original constitution and amendments attempted to protect its citizens from that fear.

gear54rus 12y ago
You are correct, I am not an American citizen at all :) I guess what you said is true for any government but does it really matter? They get what they want in the end. Be it Alexander, FBI or someone from my country.
- tgcordell 12y ago
  I view that form of thinking as a very slippery slope. The government should get what it wants, but what it wants should be defined by the people. Currently, in the HN community, the view of what the government is doing and what the rules are aren't aligned. Thus, we are pushing for rectification. We've got to take a stand somewhere. That's the only way progress is made.
- walterbell 12y ago
  > "They get what they want in the end" There is no "they". There are individuals who influence each other, each of whom may change their position depending on the position of others. History is replete with the consequences of changes inspired by advisers to advisers of leadership. There is no guarantee that you can influence outcomes, but it is exceedingly likely that if you believe that you cannot influence outcomes, then you will not.

llamataboot 12y ago

Because this is the basic deterrent against illegal searches. By making all evidence from an illegal search be thrown out, it offers a real-world incentive to not violate the 4th Amendment.

venomsnake 12y ago

2 words: General Warrants More than 2 words - If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. - Cardinal Richelieu You get into situation where you tell a prosecutor - find this guy guilty of something and throw him into jail.

destructaball 12y ago

The idea is that if you allow evidence which is gathered illegally you incentivize the gathering of evidence illegally

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]