Secret_Agent_Man |
09-15-2005 04:05 PM |
Absurdity
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The rule doesn't protect people from searches and seizures, it just benefits guilty people when they are subject to an illegal search and seizure.
|
You don't think that the exclusionary rule has encouraged the devlopment of various procedural safeguards, practices and training methods in police departments to avoid the exclusion of relevant evidence? It has.
By so doing, it seems to me that the rule has surely reduced, and continues to reduce, the number of "illegal" searches and seizures which might otherwise occur if there was no such rule.
Every police department in the country (I think) provides some training in the current state of 4th and 5th Amendment law as it applies to the way cops have to do their jobs. Some procedures may be designed to try to circumvent the rules -- but the police are conscious of it and try to comply.
As a former prosecutor, I have to say, Spanky, that your purely theoretical argument seems to be pretty far divorced from reality. I've kept quiet so far, but you're making no darn sense.
S_A_M
[ETA: Sorry to break it to you that the issue that drove you to the Federalist Society is total bull. Don't worry, though, there is still time to change your ways.]
|