Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlueStateDepression; LurkedLongEnough
I oppose deleting evidence because of how it was gained. If something was done improperly then punish those that did such a thing after a trial shows that they indeed gained the evidence in some wrongful way.

The problem here, as I see it, is this: the police had no reason to detain these men in the first place. They were investigating a wholly separate crime---they weren't patrolling the area on the lookout for drug dealers. They had no probable cause to detain these men on suspicion of the crime they were investigating, so that detention was unjustified. Anything the police discovered as a result of that detention would never have been known or realized had not that detention taken place, and since that detention was unjustified, it's as if the evidence against them never existed.

And this is the way it should be. Otherwise, the police would have carte blanche to stop anyone, for any reason, absent suspicion, and search them. That notion should be completely abhorrent to freedom-loving people.


20 posted on 05/31/2006 9:16:06 AM PDT by 54-46 Was My Number (Right now, somebody else got that number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: 54-46 Was My Number
The fact that the argument is posed that they had no cause to stop these fellas does not remove the fact that they had drugs on their person.

Cops have to work on hunches in order to do the job they are tasked to do and they should be allowed to do so. I agree they should be punished if they do a search and they find nothing, that would accomplish making them sure that a search is warranted.

I am just saying that hiding truthful evidence cannot be a positive action when its goal is to protect the innocent. Indeed these guys were far from it......until evidence was hiden that is.

and since that detention was unjustified, it's as if the evidence against them never existed.

It is the "as if" part I take issue with. Please don't get me wrong I do not seek to remove the protection from improper searches. I simply offer that there are better ways to insure that and more proper punishments for those that will search improperly.

your last paragraph assumes there is only one way to insure rights are protected. I disagree with that point entriely. There are more ways to punish the guilty cops than simply allowing the guilty perps to walk free into society.

Punishment for improper searches is due but know this, this was not an improper search and the evidence shows that quite clearly. If you care about the truth that is.

Truth as I pose it in this example is that these fellas were cold busted with drugs and they should in no way walk away scott free. Do you really think they should?
24 posted on 05/31/2006 9:25:54 AM PDT by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: 54-46 Was My Number
And this is the way it should be. Otherwise, the police would have carte blanche to stop anyone, for any reason, absent suspicion, and search them. That notion should be completely abhorrent to freedom-loving people.

Yup. Too bad there are not more freedom-loving people around. 

50 posted on 05/31/2006 11:59:39 AM PDT by zeugma (Come to the Dark Side... We have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson