Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from.

Nor do I see how you are suggesting what I'm talking about is some sort of proposal for a double standard.

I'm not saying out legal framework is perfect, and certainly not saying that injustices don't happen because there are bad people, doing horrible shit to innocent people.

I'm saying that you can't abandon the rule of law, just because someone did something that you see as a net positive.

I'm also against this train of thought when the government attempts to use this logic with eminent domain cases for example.




"Actually if a cop finds evidence of a crime without a warrant when one is required,(or any illegal means) it won't be admissible, so I'm not sure where you are coming from."

"Exigent circumstances" are, from the perspective of the law, the equivalent of a warrant, thus making any proofs legal.


I think you should read up more on exigent circumstances, what a police officer does and what is legal for use in a case are miles apart.

If the defense challenges, and the state can not convince the judge that there was a probably threat that material evidence will be destroyed before a warrant could be obtained, then it will very likely be thrown out, and can not be used in the case at all.

And even if the judge allows it, and defense loses its an open door for an appeal.

There are literally volumes of text on this subject, there is not blanket a statement that makes incorrectly gather evidence moot, as any defense attorney, it's their first line of attack.

And one of the most common ways the defense can win a case.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: