BF2S Forums Should illegally obtained evidence be allowed in court?

In general:
No. Those are the breaks. And you can't give lawyers and detectives excuses to do illegal things with the excuse that there's the potential of finding evidence of a crime.

In this example:
Still a no of course. But is hearing the plan enough evidence to convict? You don't have any evidence linking the two men to the murder, only that there was a plan. What if someone beat them to the punch? These guys, who may or may not have been serious in their plan, are going to get put away because of what someone else did, and it's even worse because the supposed evidence was illegally obtained.



It's unethical. You shouldn't break the law to catch or punish other people breaking the law.

Yeah, it should be used.

No, unless there is a VERY compelling reason.
Why would a policeman be listening to an illegal wiretap anyway?
The Police can gather all the evidence they like legally , its just often they are too lazy to do so, or the evidence is tainted or corrupted and definitely shouldn't be admitted.
The PACE rules are simple enough, its hard to understand why they don't just follow them.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-01-07 03:00:24)

Never.

The law is not selectively applicable.

You want to charge someone under the same judicial practices that makes that evidence illegal and the whole basis of that system is meaningless.

AussieReaper wrote:

Never.

The law is not selectively applicable.

You want to charge someone under the same judicial practices that makes that evidence illegal and the whole basis of that system is meaningless.

this and /thread

lowing wrote:

Ok, while I wait for an answer to my question let me hit you with one.


IF I agree with you that this should not be admissible. What is your position that further investigation into criminal activity be conducted, including wire tapping. Not being able to use the wire tap in the murder charge, but using further surveillance as reasonable suspicion for future evidence.

If they want to go ahead and wire tap another time, then by all means do, so long as it is lawful. You can obtain warrants for such activity, which is something that should always happen beforehand.
h
Illegal wiretapping does nothing but give the criminal the chance to sue the state for infringing on their rights. It can also create a double jeopardy situation if it comes out in court that illegal gathering of information took place. And that is one of the worst possible outcomes because you can't charge that criminal a second time even if you do obtain, as you say, further surveillance lawfully.

Which is the reason warrants exist in the first place.

You can't expect the police to uphold the law if they do not act lawfully in doing so.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ok, while I wait for an answer to my question let me hit you with one.


IF I agree with you that this should not be admissible. What is your position that further investigation into criminal activity be conducted, including wire tapping. Not being able to use the wire tap in the murder charge, but using further surveillance as reasonable suspicion for future evidence.

If they want to go ahead and wire tap another time, then by all means do, so long as it is lawful. You can obtain warrants for such activity, which is something that should always happen beforehand.
h
Illegal wiretapping does nothing but give the criminal the chance to sue the state for infringing on their rights. It can also create a double jeopardy situation if it comes out in court that illegal gathering of information took place. And that is one of the worst possible outcomes because you can't charge that criminal a second time even if you do obtain, as you say, further surveillance lawfully.

Which is the reason warrants exist in the first place.

You can't expect the police to uphold the law if they do not act lawfully in doing so.

yer right, but based on the illegal tap, can they then be expected to seek legal warrants for further surveillance, from illegal gains? This is my question?

lowing wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

READ FIRST, THEN VOTE

Base your answer off the following situation: If a police officer hears a conversation between two men about a plan to murder a third person through an illegal wiretap, and in the near future that third person ends up dead and there is ZERO evidence to point back to the two people who planned and carried out the murder... should the illegally heard and recorded conversation be allowed to go to court and be used as evidence?

Vote and discuss.

Need to ask a question first before I answer.

Why are the cops wire tapping these to guys in the first place? Is it for an investigation into another matter, or are you simply trying to establish that the cops waste time and money wire tapping ordinary citizens in order to try and catch them doing shit of which they have no suspicion?

The cops could get a legal wire tap if they had a good case to. Watch the TV show The Wire, it discusses all this shit. The OP is talking about an illegal wire. You can get legal wires.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-01-07 05:34:26)

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

yer right, but based on the illegal tap, can they then be expected to seek legal warrants for further surveillance, from illegal gains? This is my question?

No, because the information gathered from the original illegal tap cannot be submitted before a Judge, district attorney or anyone else capable of issuing a search warrant and/or permission to perform a legal wiretap.

All information gathered illegally is void and useless, which is why they are thrown out of court and the officers responsible could face serious charges as a consequence.

So you think, these guys are to be ignored completely, knowing what you know about them, given the fact that legally, you do not know shit?

No. Now you're clutching at straws and moving off at an extreme point of view, which I clearly do not hold.

You can obtain warrants legally, as I and now Mek too has pointed out. To obtain those warrants you can now no longer use the illegal wire taps as evidence to obtain a legal one because then why would you allow illegal taps to be legal in obtaining a warrant if you can't use them in court?

As for you ridiculous statement that these people should be ignored, the opposite should happen - the police should obtain warrants for legal searches and wire tapping and that means finding evidence legally. Why? Because if they don't follow procedures the criminals get sent home in a mistrial because the detectives fucked up. The case will be thrown out. And there is nothing lawyers or judges can do with illegally obtained evidence other than dismiss it completely or hold a retrial, or in the worst case scenario have the charges dropped because there is no evidence.

If the cops do their job right the first time, they can obtain a legal wire tapping warrant that the prosecution can use in court.

Why do you keep pressing for the use of illegal evidence?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

No, because the information gathered from the original illegal tap cannot be submitted before a Judge, district attorney or anyone else capable of issuing a search warrant and/or permission to perform a legal wiretap.

All information gathered illegally is void and useless, which is why they are thrown out of court and the officers responsible could face serious charges as a consequence.

So you think, these guys are to be ignored completely, knowing what you know about them, given the fact that legally, you do not know shit?

No. Now you're clutching at straws and moving off at an extreme point of view, which I clearly do not hold.

You can obtain warrants legally, as I and now Mek too has pointed out. To obtain those warrants you can now no longer use the illegal wire taps as evidence to obtain a legal one because then why would you allow illegal taps to be legal in obtaining a warrant if you can't use them in court?

As for you ridiculous statement that these people should be ignored, the opposite should happen - the police should obtain warrants for legal searches and wire tapping and that means finding evidence legally. Why? Because if they don't follow procedures the criminals get sent home in a mistrial because the detectives fucked up. The case will be thrown out. And there is nothing lawyers or judges can do with illegally obtained evidence other than dismiss it completely or hold a retrial, or in the worst case scenario have the charges dropped because there is no evidence.

If the cops do their job right the first time, they can obtain a legal wire tapping warrant that the prosecution can use in court.

Why do you keep pressing for the use of illegal evidence?

Point being, if you do not have the illegal gains as evidence in the first place, you have no suspicion to tap them in the second place. What are you going to use to get your warrant if you can not use the illegal gains?

FEOS wrote:

But, what I think lowing is getting at here, is that your only source for "probable cause" for your warrant is an illegal wiretap. You have no ability to get a warrant for these guys. What do you do?

correct.

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But, what I think lowing is getting at here, is that your only source for "probable cause" for your warrant is an illegal wiretap. You have no ability to get a warrant for these guys. What do you do?

correct.

Warrants these days are easy to obtain. Well I had an experience with a cop in Taiwan attempted to "search my house" without a warrant. I told him to fuck off and he replied "what do you have to hide." It's just a perfect check and balance system, and hell it's bad PR if you know your cops are illegally wiretapping people.

The system is in place to keep corrupt/irresponsible cops away imo.