4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThank 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 agoFines 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 agoThat 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 agoIn 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.