Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I said at the outset that sovereign immunity currently makes this alternative approach impossible. It would be necessary to eliminate sovereign immunity for damages actions for unlawful searches.
As for criminals being sentenced to death, 2 to spanky. Unlawfully seized evidence is not unreliable (this is not coerced confessions). No one has ever said it is. The only reason it's excluded is it's a way to vindicate the 4th amendment.
As for your damages, there are plenty of ways that civil litigation has evolved to address just such a concern, including class actions and punitive damages. Why are neither sufficient here?
|
Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.
As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.
If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.
What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?
