Remix clone Hacker News

The purpose of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is to disincentivize illegal collection of evidence. But there has always been a good-faith exception to it: if the police genuinely believed that what they were doing was legal, as they did in this case, relying on established legal precedent, then throwing out the evidence doesn't disincentivize anything.

But the declaration that cell tower dumps are illegal now disincentivizes future police from relying on dumps, since they now know (or should know) that such evidence will be thrown out. And more to the point, magistrate judges will stop issuing warrants for cell tower dumps.

▲

topspin 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

"fruit of the poisonous tree" is one of those "magic words" that a lot of people think will preclude prosecution. Judges frequently make exceptions and judgement calls on whether a given search was legal, and people are frequently convicted on "poisoned" evidence, and evidence compromised in all sorts of other ways.

▲

kevinventullo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

if the police genuinely believed that what they were doing was legal, as they did in this case, relying on established legal precedent, then throwing out the evidence doesn't disincentivize anything

This is obviously false. It would disincentivize the police from collecting evidence without first ensuring that the method of collection was legal.

▲

multjoy 5 days ago | parent [-]

They did. They went to a judge and got a warrant.

	▲	AdrianB1 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		That does not make it legal and it does not eliminate the responsibility of asking for the warrant and using it. Not saying there was a conspiracy here, but bad judges exist and arranging for a warrant is possible even for honest judges. If you are a policeman and you want to kill someone, get a judge to sign a "no knock" warrant, get in their house and shoot them, it happened many times; there were cases when the warrant was not even for the address of the poor guy that was killed and last year the warrant was for someone that borrowed a lawn mower from the judge who signed it and did not return it. So the warrant excuse is not so good.

▲

reverendsteveii 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>since they now know (or should know)

but can you hold them to that in any manner or does each officer need to be told officially and continue to plead ignorance of the law until they are in some documented way informed of it? can you plead ignorance of the law if you know it's not legal to dump all traffic from a cell phone tower but no one said that it's not legal to dump all the traffic from a web server (assuming for the sake of argument the obv interpretation that this ruling applies to all data stores that contain data from multiple people)? Every time you need to violate the constitution can you just have the new guy do it? Does declaring this illegal actually do anything to protect the rights of people who did nothing wrong and had their data seized and pored over by police anyway?

	▲	AdrianB1 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		>> Does declaring this illegal actually do anything to protect the rights of people Yes, next time they do it the data cannot be used in court as it was already declared anti-constitutional by that Circuit and good faith argument cannot be used. Good faith and not knowing the law are different; good faith can be used when the law is not clear enough and there was no rule to clarify. It happens very often with 2A restrictions that are overturned by courts, but they are in effect for years and when they are repelled by courts then similar laws are passed just to be repelled years later, but during all the years there is an anti-constitutional law in place with prohibitions. So police cannot do cell searches, but local governments can enact anti-constitutional laws with intention and wipe rights successfully, for example laws that mandates telecom companies to provide the data to the police.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]