Sorry, there's multiple people in the conversation. I was originally speaking to the person that said this

> They were allowed to gather the evidence - they had a warrant from a judge. The judge erred, not the police.

And that statement makes it very clear that, if the judge gives the ok to do something, then the judge is at fault; and _not_ the person that actually does the thing. I disagree with this. The person who does the thing is responsible for their own actions. The judge may _also_ be at fault, but that doesn't absolve the officer who took the action.

Your response (in the context of what I said)

>> if a judge tells a police officer they can do something

> Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly?

Seems to indicate you think I said the judge is the one who ordered the officer to do the thing. I didn't. I said the judge gave permission for it.

To be very clear, in a situation where

1. Tier 1 officer orders Tier 2 officer to have a thing done

2. Tier 2 officer orders Tier 3 officer to do the thing

3. Judge authorizes Tier 3 officer to do the thing

4. Tier 3 officer does the thing

If "the thing" is clearly illegal (to a reasonable person), then ALL of those individuals are at fault. And Tier 3 officer clearly broke the law when doing the thing.

I believe that