"Sure we had a warrant. ...More or less."

[unixronin]

The Supreme Court ruled today that evidence gained from an illegal search or unlawful arrest is admissable as evidence provided the search or arrest arose from a clerical error over a warrant — i.e, as long as the officers involved believed they had a legal warrant or probable cause.

Now, consider this in view of the various occasions on which it has been admitted that as many as 50% of the records in some government databases may be in error.

The way I see it, if I violate a law through negligence or error, that doesn't get me anywhere; I'm still liable.  The government and its agents should be held to the same standard.  If they make an illegal search or arrest because of negligence or an error, it's still an illegal search or arrest, and anything they find should still be inadmissable.  I can see and understand the arguments to the contrary, but balanced against them is the slippery slope that if any illegal search or arrest can be excused by saying "Oops", then anyone can get away with making an illegal search or arrest, and what remains of the Fourth Amendment protection may as well be written in chalk on the bottom of a swimming pool.

Comments

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

The exclusionary rule is a very new rule in jurisprudence — just a century ago illegally obtained evidence was routinely admitted in court. In response to ongoing and deliberate violations of the Fourth Amendment by the Executive Branch, the Judiciary adopted the exclusionary rule to preclude not all evidence obtained illegally, but only evidence deliberately obtained illegally by government agents.

In light of this, the ruling over the database error isn't surprising. No one was alleging deliberate malfeasance on the part of the law enforcement agents. If the plaintiff isn't going to raise the issue, the jurists won't consider the issue.

If a plaintiff were to raise the issue and present strong evidence that government databases are in such a state of arrears as to be deemed ongoing criminal negligence, then the exclusionary rule would apply. As long as it's ongoing simple negligence, the exclusionary rule does not.

I actually support this ruling. Given the plaintiff's brief and the evidence presented, I think the judges' ruling makes sense. That said, I think the plaintiff could have given a much stronger brief.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have to admit that in this case the plaintiff can hardly make a convincing case for being on the side of the angels.