How is THIS not against the law?

[Ferd_Burfel]

@doreen

I think not enough attention was paid to this quote from the article
*Joyce said she concluded that there was no admissible evidence to support any charge, including stealing.

“The only evidence here is the officers’ statements to internal affairs, and that’s not admissible because it’s considered coerced. The officers are ordered to answer or face losing their jobs. I’m forbidden by the Constitution to use coerced evidence to prosecute, or even use for a jumping off point to an investigation.”*

In other words, there isn’t any legally admissible evidence to prove a charge. Doesn’t mean a charge of larceny or the equivalent might not be appropriate with a different set of facts- witnesses who saw the officers take the tickets, or records of when they were removed from the place evidence is kept and when they were returned. The prosecutor’s choice of words is important. She never says that they didn’t commit a crime, or that their actions were legal- just that she doesn’t have any evidence to support a charge. Later on, however, she very clearly said that they did not commit the crime of tampering with evidence. If she believes they did commit a crime, but knows she can’t prove it , all she really can say is that she has no evidence to support a charge.

I think the above answers my question sufficiently. I’ll admit that I missed the coded meaning of “admissible evidence” and will concede that punishment being meted out seems to fit the crime.

Mods, I’m satisfied. Perhaps it’s best to close this thread before it completely derails.

[JRDelirious]

@jackdavinci

That’s a reasonable speculation but: 1) I don’t think we got an actual cite for that and 2) I don’t think we got a handle on what crime it would be if the evidence was admissible.

I’m not clear on what the laws are for this sort of thing although I suspect they vary from state to state.

Right. IIRC the Penal Code where I live has an article for an offence known as “gaining improper benefit from an official post”, which would encompass a wide range of actions from something like this to ordering the school janitor to wax the Superintendent’s car to a Planning Agency employee using inside info on zoning changes to flip properties, etc. However, the coerced testimony would still prevent a prosecution IIRC. (Also, if something like that happened here, those sanctions imposed by the PD would likely be considered punishment enough from a prosecutorial discretion standpoint as the Courts are busy enough.)

[Little_Nemo]

Funny how this thread has taken on a life of its own. What part of: they committed a crime but we can’t prosecute because there is no admissible evidence did everyone not get?

I pointed this out back in post #10.

[HubZilla]

@stuyguy

HubZilla’s irrelevant and indignation-fueled hijack of this otherwise fascinating thread with his allusion to the Duke lacrosse rape accusation case is utterly out of place here, in my opinion. He/she, and all those who wish to discuss that case, should take their musings to a new thread. Both cases are interesting enough, and unrelated enough, to support their own threads.

It is additionally annoying that HubZilla came to this thread, pissed on it with his hijack, and has not returned since.

Stupid Hawaii time zones, but alas, you were right. A new thread was started in GD.

[DSYoungEsq]

@jackdavinci

That’s a reasonable speculation but: 1) I don’t think we got an actual cite for that and 2) I don’t think we got a handle on what crime it would be if the evidence was admissible.

As to 1, I suggest reading Post #25 in this thread carefully.