|
| ▲ | einpoklum 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| You're conflating "holding accountable" and "letting benefit". The question isn't whether the police officers who initiated the tower dump should go to jail or be fired, but whether the evidence they obtained would be admissible. It shouldn't be. Also, a cell tower dump is not an act in good faith - neither in 2020 nor in 2025, regardless of whether the court lets it slide or not. |
|
| ▲ | pcaharrier 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is the basic idea of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule was supposed to deter police misconduct (e.g., searching a house without a warrant, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment) by preventing them from using evidence they never should have had. But the deterrence rationale doesn't hold up that well when the police reasonably (and that's key) believed that they were acting lawfully. |
| |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 5 days ago | parent [-] | | 'Your constitutional rights were violated but tough luck, nothing can be done about it because the court is extending special 'good faith' courtesy to the police that you don't get (some animals are more equal than others in court decisions/considerations when minor laws (the fourth amendment) are broken)'. And people wonder why American's are apathetic to it all. A judge can just wave away constitutional violations all day/every day because 'good faith'. | | |
| ▲ | garbagewoman 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Go back and reread the comment you replied to. The exception can only happen once, because the precedent doesn’t exist until that ruling is made. | | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Got it, Constitutional rights were violated, but our Constitution, the highest law in the land, has it written in that precedent is put above the Constitution. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | djrj477dhsnv 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It is not reasonable to hold someone accountable for doing something illegal in 2020 that was only determined to be illegal in 2025. Tell that to a financial regulator and see where it gets you. That's how it works for everyone else. Just because a law hasn't been clarified yet doesn't stop it from being applied to your past actions after courts have clarified it. |
|
| ▲ | const_cast 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, if the thing in question were someone being tried with a crime. Rather, it's the opposite. It's not "punishing" police to say "hey, you can't use this evidence". That's not a punishment for them, they shouldn't personally be offended by that. And we certainly shouldn't be comparing that outcome to as if the police are being put behind bars. We shouldn't be putting people behind bars with bad evidence just because we didn't know it was bad when we got it. No, we should retroactively say "hey, we can't use that evidence". If that hurts the police's fee fees I don't think that should come into play. I don't think that's a metric we should be optimizing for. |
|
| ▲ | op00to 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If a warrant is later found unconstitutional, that means it was always legally invalid, not newly illegal in 2025. |
|
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
