We have had [historically] issues with convictions on dodgy evidence [and sometimes a lack of evidence] that could have or should have been prevented by the court system.
[as a rough example, the Lincoln Assassination Conspirators were pretty much railroaded. Poor Dr Mudd literally did nothing but follow the basics of human kindness, he treated some guy that showed up at his doorstep with a broken leg. He had NO way of knowing the guy had just shot the president … the government suppressed Booth’s diary and tried them with a military tribunal instead of the proper judicial system that would have given them a lot more protection vis a vis their constitutional rights.]
Today’s Cecil columnis about the exclusionary rule and finding crack pipes in the trash.
Many countries allow that evidence, but the US didn’t. I hardly think that is “a rogue cop planting evidence”
In cases of public officials charged with crimes committed in office or corporate officials charged with corporate malfeasance, I would like to see the exclusion rule rescinded.
The sole intent of the fifth amendment
was to deny confessions extracted by torture. This would seem to say that DNA evidence would be admissible regardless of how it is obtained.
In prosecutions involving criminalized personal and victimless behavior, it should be heavily enforced.
It’s not about burdening rogue cops. Freedom means freedom for everybody and civil liberties need to be protected for all people, especially the guilty. Defending people’s rights absolutely puts a burden on a free society but it’s totally worth it.
Excluding evidence that was acquired illegally does two wrongs.
The first is the criminal gets away with it, if the excluded the evidence makes the difference between a conviction or not. Allowing law-breakers to avoid conviction does not help our society.
The other wrong is allowing the police to get away it. How does excluding evidence hurt the police? It doesn’t. Police illegally obtaining evidence is should be felony and it should be prosecuted. Allowing law-breakers to avoid conviction does not help our society.
Two wrongs do make a right. Our current procedure is the worst of both worlds–letting both crimes go unpunished.
But it doesn’t let the police get away with it. They don’t get their conviction. What point is there to illegally obtaining evidence if in the end you let a guilty person get away with a crime because of it?
The DA will care and they are elected officials (and the community you already stipulated to being hurt are the ones voting for the DA). They will be complaining loudly to the mayor and/or Chief of Police.
The mayor will care (elected official again) and likely put a boot in the ass of the Chief of Police who will in turn pass the ass kicking downstream till the cop get one in the ass.
A Sheriff is elected and will care and put a boot in the ass of the offending police officer.
The police officer will care because, I would presume, screwing up like that goes in their record and may affect promotions or, possibly, even put their job in jeopardy.
Besides, I think it is a safe bet the police want to see a criminal get the punishment they deserve. Screwing up and seeing the perp walk is not something a cop is likely to be blase about. At the very least it is a lot of work on their part for zero effect.
Add it all up and I think it is a safe bet to say the police care.
But all that is a slap on the wrist compared to the punishment that those who collect evidence illegally should get–jail time and removal from public service.
Police powers are very important; society places a lot of trust in a person who is permitted to use them. If someone is not competent, they should not have police powers.
That should be the focus of the judicial interest. Let the judge lock up cops who submit ill-gotten evidence as contempt of court, and then let the truth enter the record.
I have a hunch we don’t really have to speculate about how this would work, as it’s done in other countries, where judges don’t have that rule but still protect the public from bad officials.
From my little bit of reading it seems the Exclusionary Rule is (relatively) rarely enforced. Police are given great leeway in producing evidence. Sure we all probably have a sense of “some guy who was totally guilty walking free” because of the Exclusionary Rule but on the whole I think that is anecdotal at best and exceptionally rare.
The Exclusionary Rule seems to only really come into effect when the misconduct is very egregious (hell, in the OJ Simpson trial the judge said he felt the police showed reckless disregard for the truth on why they conducted a search yet let the evidence stand).
In that case hands off what little rights remain to me please. I personally care about my Constitutional protections. Don’t gut the last shred of the protections courts still think I have under the Fourth Amendment.