| Sidd Finch |
03-09-2006 07:28 PM |
Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I dunno. You're the one with all the scary experience. You said "arrested again," but now you're implying no second crime happens. Hmmmmm, do you mean like they catch him just before the second crime happens like in that one Tom Cruise movie? or are you saying when the evidence get thrown out for a first crime the cops keep working the file and eventually break it open and it's all good?
|
I'm saying that with competent police work, it is very rare that cases get thrown out because all of the evidence was obtained in violation of the exclusionary rule. It happens, but it doesn't happen often. Even where it does happen, you often have to wait until trial to get a decision, and so it's more likely that the motion you would be able to bring will provide some leverage in the plea bargain process, but that's about it.
It's also not that unusual that state courts simply disregard the exclusionary rule, and that the appellate courts then find that the wrongly admitted evidence was "harmless." Which leaves the defendant with little recourse, because federal courts will not hear fourth amendment issues on habeas. This is another reason why you are more likely to try to plea bargain when there is clear guilt, then you are to assume that you can get the wrongly acquired evidence tossed and so you'll take your chances on going forward.
I am also saying, and have said, that I am willing to accept the consequence of this rule. I have yet to hear an alternative that would protect constitutional rights, and despite decades of people griping about this rule no one seems to have come up with one.
In Spanky-land, that means I want all murderers to run free or something.
|