Forums

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, what you're saying is the only person who should benefit from the rule is the criminal. I, as a law abiding citizen, who might at some point be unlawfully searched, will get zero recompense.

With all rights we monetize past violations, because we can enjoin only future ones. In some cases this matters--for example, prior restraints on speech--but even then, you may be delayed in getting your message out (like Martha Burke, who missed the masters). In some cases it's express in the constitution--for example, the government can seize your property if it pays you. This extends to torts. I can't cut off your leg, but if I do, I have to pay you.

What you seem to be saying is that there is no amount of money damages that can adequately deter unlawful searches, such that the only way to deter them (and thus ensure the right is meaningful) is to let criminals go free. I think there is an amount of money damages. And, if a p.d. engages in a pattern of illegal searches, it would be relatively easy to bring a class action or something like it for injunctive relief commanding them to adhere to the law. Plaintiffs lawyers would start smelling the punis, and that police chief isout of town on a rail.

So does that mean that every time the police conduct an illegal search, I can sue them for depriving me of the right to feel safe and secure in my home and person?