Should police be granted certain exceptions in using illegally obtained evidence?
2007-01-14 13:22:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
There are certain, carefully defined exceptions to using illegally obtained evidence.
For instance: You murder your wife. The cops show up, start accusing you of the crime and asking questions without informing you of your rights. They even push you around (excessive force) and you blurt out that the body is in the alley behind your house.
Evidence obtain like that is usually not admissible. However, since the body of your wife would have been found anyway it is admissible. This is called "inevitable discovery".
Another is "plain view". For instance. You are a convicted felon, out on parole. The cops serve a warrant on you looking for a stolen car. They come into your home to talk to you about the stolen car and see your shotgun standing in the corner. You are arrested and charged with possessing a firearm. Normally, evidence seized without a warrant or probable cause is not admitted. But the gun was in plain view and the violation obvious. You're history.
2007-01-14 19:03:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Preservation of the philosophies that this country was founded on require that the government act in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land. If evidence is obtained illegally, it should be excluded.
2007-01-14 17:47:36 · answer #2 · answered by James P 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The way I see it, evidence is evidence. If you aren't doing anything illegal, you shouldn't have a problem, they won't get anything on you. I believe the ends justify the means, and some of those privacy laws are only protecting criminals, everyone else has nothing to hide.
2007-01-14 22:20:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
interior the rustic the illegally gained info may be thrown out (we are the only united states interior the international that has this coverage). This even carry if the police concept he replace into doing it the criminal way, and made an honest mistake. Many criminals get off each and every 3 hundred and sixty 5 days do to those regulations. This coverage has enable criminals, even serial killers, to circulate loose, and allowed them to declare extra victims. The police who assemble the info can get reprimanded, demoted, fired or face civil and criminal quotes, it purely actual relies upon on the circumstances of the specific case.
2016-10-07 04:10:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who is going to determine when illegally obtainef evidence is okay to use? Where is the line?
It has to be absolute - all or nothing - or else a flood gate will open, and rights of individuals will go out the window.
2007-01-14 13:27:05 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a sticky one. I understand how frustrating it is to see people walk on technicalities like that, but it would be unconstitutional based on amendment 4. Then, what would be next? If they don't need a warrant, then they can just arbitrarily kick down anyone's door they want just to see if they are doing something wrong. We have lost enough of our freedoms, and this one is too dangerous.
Just remember, every time they pass a law, we lose another freedom.
2007-01-14 13:29:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course ==too many criminal scum get off to continue to prey on th weak and stupid because of some lawyers tricks.
2007-01-14 15:43:26 · answer #7 · answered by crackleboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends really.
2007-01-14 21:59:39 · answer #8 · answered by deftonehead778 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no that's why they call it illegally obtained. it's illegal.
2007-01-14 13:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by summer love 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
cops come up with phony evidence enough allready lie to get warrents and murder civilans now why give those basterds another way to screw us
2007-01-14 13:37:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋