quote:Originally posted by Omega: Just thought of a position I didn't cover. Illegally obtained evidence should not be ruled inadmissable. Whoever obtained it illegally should be punished severely, but it's still evidence and should not be thrown out because of its origin.
That sure would make it easy to fabricate evidence, trample on human rights, personal civil rights and would make law enforcement officers criminals themselves. After all, look at the slap on the wrist penalties for purjury....a person could be framed easily if illeagally obtained evidence were admissiable.
I DO think that some evidence should be brought into the public domain though: having to get a search warrant for a person's garbage is a bit much.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
You know, I never thought about that. True enough, if people saw what harbored in my trash-bags at times, they wouldn't know whether to cry or scream.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Throwing something away is not the same as releasing it to the public domain, nor should it be.
Yet...should'nt a search warrant for a suspect's apartment extend to their trash in front of it?
Currently, a warrant can be issued for either but they are usually seperate.
If grounds are found for the initial warrant, should'nt it extend that far? I can see both sides of the argument, but from a law enforcment POV, potential evidence might be lost to trash pick-up while a warrant is being obtained.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
One man's trash is another man's secret hiding place .... Shit, so much for treasure.....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Y'know, I was under the impression that once you put your trash on the street it's not yours any more, and thus subject to search regardless of warrant. Don't know where I got that, though.
Can you please give me an example of how someone could be framed using illegally obtained evidence? I'm assuming here that the judge and jury aren't idiots and aren't going to believe things that are blatant lies.
Oh, and penalties for perjury should be much much stricter, BTW, assuming you weren't being sarcastic about them being weak. I'm not sure what they are at the moment, but they should really suck.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Can you please give me an example of how someone could be framed using illegally obtained evidence? I'm assuming here that the judge and jury aren't idiots and aren't going to believe things that are blatant lies.
THe term is "fruit from the posionous tree". If a search is illegal, any subsequent evidence obtained in that search are inadmissable as a result. A person could be framed easily via circumstancial evidence obtained ileagally or via planted evidence: cops want to make a case against someone they feel is guilty- allowing anything to be admitted from an illeagal search calls ALL the obtained evidence's origin into question. If investigators went so far as to break the law in evidence's gathering, how can you (as a juror) trust the source at all?
The warrant system serves as oversight to prevent having to prove yourself innocent against charges.
It's not so much that judges are idiots as that juries are idiots and need the law to be clear and strict to balance their opinions and biases: after all, they could'nt even get out of jury duty.
quote: Oh, and penalties for perjury should be much much stricter, BTW, assuming you weren't being sarcastic about them being weak. I'm not sure what they are at the moment, but they should really suck.
I really agree. Look at our pal John Poindexter: convicted of Congressional Purjury and now he's sitting pretty next to Tom Ridge at Homeland SEcurity conferences.
He was pardoned, of course.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Y'know, I was under the impression that once you put your trash on the street it's not yours any more, and thus subject to search regardless of warrant. Don't know where I got that, though.
It does seem a bit odd that you would need a warrant to search trash in front of a house...
Afterall, don't they routinely search dumpsters and landfill sites when they think that evidence may have been dumped? How would the search warrant be worded on a landfill if it all still "belonged" to their owners?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
