I will do a search after I post this, to try to add more cites. But I will tell you what I have already heard.
Ever since the Reagan administration, conservatives have been trying to do away with the exclusionary rule. That is the rule the Supreme Court established, that said if evidence is obtained thru an illegal search, it is inadmissible in court.
Makes a lot of sense really. Because that is the only incentive police have not to behave unethically. I realize most police are decent, law-abiding people. But even they have their lapses, I think we can all agree. Which is why we need this rule.
Anyways, a short while ago, the SCOTUS finally got the swing vote it needed to toss out the exclusionary rule altogether. Justice Scalia (God rest his soul), said it was really okay. Because (he said) you can just sue the US govt. in civil court later, to make them held responsible for what they did.
Now my confusion. As I understand it, felons in prison do NOT have the power to sue anyone. And then there is the 11th Amendment to the US Constitution. Sovereign immunity, they call it. Which basically means you can’t sue the US government (without their permission they say–but if you read it, it seems to say you can’t sue them at all).
So how did Scalia conclude we can just sue, if we are illegally raided by the government?
As I said, I will now do some searches. But if anyone finds cites to what I have said in the meantime, feel free to help me out:).