Federal Court Throws Out Six Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance
It goes against the US tradition, but I'd prefer to <i>not</i> have the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' doctrine but instead direct penalties for violations by police.<p>As it stands, it has the following effect:<p>1. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights of someone commiting a crime, then the evidence obtained this way is discarded, letting a true criminal go free, assuming that the evidence actually proves guilt.<p>2. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights and privacy of an innocent person (e.g. me) then nothing happens.<p>In both cases, any benefit of the doctrine goes to people who don't deserve it - the lawbreakers with or without badges and uniforms.<p>For most law-abiding people who value their rights and privacy it would be rational to request that the doctrine is "violations by police in gathering evidence get handled by existing law".<p>If a policeman obtains evidence by breaking down a door without a warrant and taking some documents, despite being a professional with special training on what their specific rights and duties are, then let the evidence stand but let also the policeman stand trial (not disciplinary action, but a proper trial) for breaking and entering. Just as for cases of policemen shooting people - at least worldwide, given the recent events I'm not sure anymore how it's in USA.