In most of our countries (to the best of my knowledge not being familiar with all their legal systems) courts cannot accept evidence that was illegally obtained. Where everyone knows that the person is guilty however should the rules be bent to allow the use of illegally obtained evidence, such as from an unwarranted search?
The question posits a false premise. In Anglo-American systems of justice, there isn't ever a case where a court of law can presume that any suspect is guilty, or else a trial wouldn't be necessary.
No. Negative. Nyet. You'll have to elaborate further. Are we talking about an unwarranted search or an illegal unwarranted search? If you invite me in after I knock on your door and I see something that is in plain sight...
In all fairness, no it should not be admissable. The keyword here is illegal. Illegal meaning got caught. So if the person were worth a grain of salt, they would not screw it up.
I'd say that it depends on the source. If it's an illegal search by Law enforcement personel, no way. If it's from a private source, say a P.I. or concerned citizen, maybe. But the P.I. runs the risk of losing his license, and the private citizen may well be charged with brreaking and entering. In any case, evidence obtained by any extra-legal means won't have a clean chain of evidence custody, so it's suspect from the start, and any decent lawyer should be able to impeach it. Edit: How'd I do Elwood?
I thought about this question before. I hate the idea that someone obviously guilty is released based on something wrong with how the evidence was found...so I lean towards...the evidense should be admissable... A big however... Those responsible for obtaining the evidence illegally should face huge penalties...including jailtime for repeated violations
I honestly don't know about Private Investigators. I've never dealt with one and I generally hold PI's and Bounty Hunters in the same regard, that is, lower than snail shit. But, you're right about a private individual. My TO was fond of saying, "No chain of custody, no evidence." However, the private citizen also opens themselves up to possible criminal charges AND the inevitable civil matter where they are sued into oblivion. There are a billion hypothetical situations out there ranging from the citizen that filmed the Rodney King beating to lifting a knife from your neighbor's kitchen if you suspect him of burying dead bodies in his back yard. Some good, some bad. Some work, some don't. It just depends on the situation.
PI's aren't the same as bounty hunters, El... There's a lot of things they can do that you can't... In fact, there's a few around here who do a lot of work for PD's because they have expertise that cops can't afford to keep on payroll, like accountancy work and the like. Plus, most of their work is civil in nature as opposed to criminal.
No. Opens the gates for complete state arbitrariness. What stops the police from just kicking in your door without warrant when the collected evidence is permissible? This would really be a bad idea. Doesn't work like that in western legal systems. Fortunately.
That would mean police entrapment evidence would be permissable. So no, i for one don't really trust the police in cases where they 'need' a conviction,... or are just trying to make up targets
That's still focusing more on procedure than justice. Police Officers should be subject to judgment beyond the letter of the law as well.
Illegally obtained evidence absolutely should not be allowed. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's what keeps us from turning into a police state.
Unfortunately,the Supreme Court has most recently ruled that illegally obtained evidence can be used under various circumstances, as spelled out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule My personal preference would be for the exclusionary rule to be strengthened rather than weakened.
In the UK an illegal search doesn't make the evidence inadmissable. There are provisions for the defence to apply to exclude such evidence. The leading authority stated; s78 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 then set down a statutory test in which a court can look at how the material was obtained and use that as a factor in its consideration as to whether to exclude the evidence or not. To be honest this is the system I have experience of and it works fairly well. It's not perfect by any means but I can't see it changing anytime soon. In relation to evidence being obtained by the use of force/torture etc. I think that should always be inadmissable.
Interesting responses, I haven't forgotten this thread, just a bit busy to write up a long reply at the moment.
Yes, but the most important justice is the upholding of the rights of the people... not making sure every wrongdoer gets punished.
