Federal Court Throws Out Six Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance
It goes against the US tradition, but I'd prefer to not have the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' doctrine but instead direct penalties for violations by police.As it stands, it has the following effect: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.2. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights and privacy of an innocent person (e.g. me) then nothing happens.In both cases, any benefit of the doctrine goes to people who don't deserve it - the lawbreakers with or without badges and uniforms.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".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.