On: The Silk Road statement: Where are the packetlogs?

[xorcist]

I understand how the principle works, in part because of this wikipedia article, but what I don't understand is why such a rule has been implemented.

[ghshephard → xorcist]

It's because of such rules the police won't enter your home without a warrant. If they did so, and found evidence of a crime - it would be thrown out. These rules exist to make sure the police have no incentive to enter your home unless they have a warrant (or evidence of a crime in progress)

It protects the population at large from an unrestrained law enforcement system from intruding upon you in a multitude of ways.

[datr → xorcist]

It's designed to try and avoid a moral hazard where a rogue police office may choose to suffer the consequences of an illegal search (if indeed a case could be brought) in order to get the evidence he or she needs.

[jiggy2011 → xorcist]

Because otherwise there would be little incentive for cops to follow the 4th amendment.

[xorcist → jiggy2011]

Are there really no other juridicial consequences for breaking what I understand to be a constitutional law?

Perhaps there need to be. Perhaps consequences much more severe than letting a criminal walk free.

[jiggy2011 → xorcist]

But who would enforce those consequences? The same cops who benefit from the illegal evidence?

[xorcist → jiggy2011]

No, of course not. Separate policemen who specialize in this. It's not different from any other police misconduct.

[jiggy2011 → xorcist]

What happens if you get public pressure to cut their funding because the are seen to be hindering?

[msh → xorcist]

The best way of discouraging something is to make it unlikely to profit from it.