4 ms·

But you have to be careful with this lest this incentivizes the creation of parallel-reconstruction-like fabrications of the source of evidence.

by bdhe 12y ago

the_ancient 12y ago
Even if the only result is tossing the evidence that will still incentive Parallel Construction, which has been going on for a long long time. The legal System is setup to encourage this. The only way to prevent that would be independent audits of all investigations which would be both expensive, time prohibitive, and over time the "independent" auditors would be corrupted leading to the need for auditors of the auditors, etc etc etc it is the "who watches and watchers" problem, you find a solution to this you let me know because you will be a very rich person.
freshhawk 12y ago
What? That's like saying that prosecuting perjury too harshly will incentivize better fabricated story coaching by lawyers. Or, in general, prosecuting crimes incentivizes more perfect crimes.
wyager 12y ago
"If we punish crime, criminals will get smarter!"
- bdhe 12y ago
  Touche. Didn't think that my argument would sound like that, but it does.
furyg3 12y ago
For those unfamiliar with parallel construction (like I was) an intro: Using thermal imaging to scan neighborhoods for the lights used to grow marijuana is considered a "search" by the courts and police have a warrant to do this. Let's say the police ignore this and go around secretly scanning cities without a warrant. They find out that John is growing weed in his basement, but they can't arrest him because this evidence is inadmissible. They follow John for a while and see that he interacts with Pete. Pete has a warrant out on him based on some unpaid parking tickets. So the cops arrest Pete, find weed, and get him to finger John as the source. Now the cops can get a warrant, search John's house, and "oh hey look there's all this marijuana growing here!" This evidence is normally inadmissible as it was derived from an illegal search. It's very difficult to catch unless the police stupidly submit it to the court (as in the OP). Not using this tactic requires a high-degree of morality and/or oversight of police officers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

But you have to be careful with this lest this incentivizes the creation of parallel-reconstruction-like fabrications of the source of evidence.

by bdhe 12y ago

But you have to be careful with this lest this incentivizes the creation of parallel-reconstruction-like fabrications of the source of evidence.

the_ancient 12y ago

Even if the only result is tossing the evidence that will still incentive Parallel Construction, which has been going on for a long long time. The legal System is setup to encourage this. The only way to prevent that would be independent audits of all investigations which would be both expensive, time prohibitive, and over time the "independent" auditors would be corrupted leading to the need for auditors of the auditors, etc etc etc it is the "who watches and watchers" problem, you find a solution to this you let me know because you will be a very rich person.

freshhawk 12y ago

What? That's like saying that prosecuting perjury too harshly will incentivize better fabricated story coaching by lawyers. Or, in general, prosecuting crimes incentivizes more perfect crimes.

wyager 12y ago

"If we punish crime, criminals will get smarter!"

bdhe 12y ago
Touche. Didn't think that my argument would sound like that, but it does.

furyg3 12y ago

For those unfamiliar with parallel construction (like I was) an intro: Using thermal imaging to scan neighborhoods for the lights used to grow marijuana is considered a "search" by the courts and police have a warrant to do this. Let's say the police ignore this and go around secretly scanning cities without a warrant. They find out that John is growing weed in his basement, but they can't arrest him because this evidence is inadmissible. They follow John for a while and see that he interacts with Pete. Pete has a warrant out on him based on some unpaid parking tickets. So the cops arrest Pete, find weed, and get him to finger John as the source. Now the cops can get a warrant, search John's house, and "oh hey look there's all this marijuana growing here!" This evidence is normally inadmissible as it was derived from an illegal search. It's very difficult to catch unless the police stupidly submit it to the court (as in the OP). Not using this tactic requires a high-degree of morality and/or oversight of police officers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction