| ▲ | bee_rider 5 hours ago |
| It is a little confusing, they ruled that the search was not legitimate, but this didn’t end up helping the defendant? I’m definitely missing an important nuance here but I’m not sure what it is… |
|
| ▲ | 201p 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception |
|
| ▲ | sidewndr46 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The judge doesn't care if the law was violated in collecting evidence. |
| |
| ▲ | qingcharles 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I had a judge once tell me that the police absolutely have the right to commit crimes to gather evidence in an investigation. (mostly true -- for instance an officer can generally commit innumerable felonies as long as nothing they do violates your personal constitutional rights -- rarely is evidence thrown out because it was obtained in violation of a statute unless that statute includes a provision for exclusion, e.g. wiretapping laws) | |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe this particular judge didn't for whatever reasoning, but judges definitely prevent a prosecutor from introducing evidence based on how it was collected. This is why concepts like "fruit of poisonous tree" and "parallel construction" exist. | | |
| ▲ | harimau777 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't parallel construcction mean that judges actually don't care how evidence was collected? They can't possibly care that much if they are fine with a fig leaf like parallel construction. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Refreeze5224 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think they left it to the lower court to decide if the search was legitimate in particular. They ruled in general that geo-fence warrants are not OK. Not a lawyer though! |