"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

[novel-tharkun.livejournal.com]

Given the specifics of the case, this ruling isn't a problem. My bigger worry is that it might lead to a cost-benefit thought process wherein the choice is made to intentionally (accidentally) under-staff document maintenance & IT departments both to game the system for greater ability to search and to save money. As various laws are passed to create larger databases with more information (see also patriot act) in them it becomes essential that the opposite occur.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That too. We don't need departments operating on an accidentally-on-purpose basis.