Exclusion of evidence

[Emsworth]

Yes (Democrat)

[KillerPollo]

Yes (Democrat)

Yes (Independent)

[Virginian87]

Yes.  If it was obtained illegally, it can't be used.  I would be almost inclined to say no, but the law must be respected.

[John Dibble]

Yes, unfortunately. If law enforcement isn't going to respect the law, what's the point of it?

[A18]

Yes. Law enforcement must not be permitted to think it can get away with anything.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Yes, although I'd leave some way for a judge to grant an exception.

[A18]

To the extent that there are exceptions, there are motives for bending the rules.

[Emsworth]

To the extent that there are exceptions, there are motives for bending the rules.

I agree. The "inevitable discovery" exception is particularly dangerous.

[dazzleman]

Not automatically.  It depends upon the circumstances.

The interests of society must be weighed in this type of issue.  This is a cost to setting a guilty person free, and sometimes it can cost innocent people their lives.  Courts need to recognize that in addition to protecting the rights of the accused, they also have a responsibility to protect society from violent criminals.  I don't think they recognize this often enough.

[Gabu]

I would say yes.  If we say "well, we have the evidence now, so let's use it even though it was obtained legally", there is absolutely nothing to motivate the police from just blatantly ignoring the law whenever they accumulate evidence.

I think dazzleman makes a good point, but at the same time, I think that if we allow exceptions, it's hard to see where to draw the line and who would do the line-drawing.  It seems to me that that would open up the possibility that the law would become completely optional if it's up to the judge whether or not it gets enforced.  I really would rather not give the judge that power, and I don't know who else to give it to.

[Cubby]

I'm proud to be the first Democrat to vote No.

Its stupid to pretend the evidence doesn't exist when it clearly does. I don't like it when guilty people (i.e. Michael Jackson) get freed on technacalities.

I love "The Shield" on FX. It makes Law and Order and its clones look like crap compared to it.

[J. J.]

Not automatically.  It depends upon the circumstances.

The interests of society must be weighed in this type of issue.  This is a cost to setting a guilty person free, and sometimes it can cost innocent people their lives.  Courts need to recognize that in addition to protecting the rights of the accused, they also have a responsibility to protect society from violent criminals.  I don't think they recognize this often enough.

While I'll agree with "not automatically," it sets a dangerous precedent to permit law enforcement to illegally sieze evidence. 

[opebo]

Yes, obviously. 

[Emsworth]

I'm proud to be the first Democrat to vote No.

Its stupid to pretend the evidence doesn't exist when it clearly does.

It's not really a question of pretending that something doesn't exist because of a technicality. Rather, the exclusionary rule is intended to force the police to respect the law. Otherwise, they would have no regard for constitutional protections and would regularly search and seize without the authority to do so. There would be no incentive for doing otherwise.

Unfortunate as it may seem, I would rather have a criminal acquitted than see the civil liberties of the people trampled and the Constitution ignored.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jackson was not freed on a technicality. A jury found him not guilty.

[Blue Rectangle]

No.  I would hold law enforcement officers criminally liable if they break the law in gathering evidence.  Tough penalties would go a lot farther than "punishing" the cops by letting a guilty man go free.

It really is true that two wrongs don't make a right.  Criminal behavior by investigators does not reduce the guilt of another criminal.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

No.  I would hold law enforcement officers criminally liable if they break the law in gathering evidence.  Tough penalties would go a lot farther than "punishing" the cops by letting a guilty man go free.

It really is true that two wrongs don't make a right.  Criminal behavior by investigators does not reduce the guilt of another criminal.

The problem with this solution is that it would result in a lot of ultimately admissible evidence never being discovered.  If cops had to be worried that they would personally be punished everytime they made a borderline search, they would refuse to do these searches when there was any possibility that it might be ruled illegal. 

Under the current system, illegally obtained evidence discovered and excluded, and borderline legal evidence is discovered and admissible.  Under what you are proposing, both illegal and borderline legal evidence would never be found, setting a lot more criminals free.

[Blue Rectangle]

No.  I would hold law enforcement officers criminally liable if they break the law in gathering evidence.  Tough penalties would go a lot farther than "punishing" the cops by letting a guilty man go free.

It really is true that two wrongs don't make a right.  Criminal behavior by investigators does not reduce the guilt of another criminal.

The problem with this solution is that it would result in a lot of ultimately admissible evidence never being discovered.  If cops had to be worried that they would personally be punished everytime they made a borderline search, they would refuse to do these searches when there was any possibility that it might be ruled illegal. 

Under the current system, illegally obtained evidence discovered and excluded, and borderline legal evidence is discovered and admissible.  Under what you are proposing, both illegal and borderline legal evidence would never be found, setting a lot more criminals free.

Good points, but would these borderline searches incur such stiff legal penalties?  What is the punishment for looking into someone's car trunk without their consent, for example?  I imagine a first or second offense of something like that would be ignored by a Federal prosecutor, or would only be punished with community service or a minor fine.  If a cop becomes a repeat offender, then prosecute them for criminal trespassing and seek a 90-day jail term.  A balance could be found between deterring illegal acts by police and punishing the criminals.

[Ebowed]

No (D)

[ATFFL]

Allow it in, but then the officer/court officer who siezed it illegally gets the same punishment as the original ciminal.

[Gabu]

Allow it in, but then the officer/court officer who siezed it illegally gets the same punishment as the original ciminal.

You'd give an officer the death penalty if he obtained evidence illegally for a serial killer's trial?

Wouldn't that result in less evidence being presented the more heinous the crime was, resulting in serial killers having very little evidence put forth against them in fear that it would be found illegal, while people committing minor crimes would be prosecuted much more strongly?