RE: It Finally Happened: Police Officer Caught Planting Evidence BY HIS OWN BODY CAMERA
Oh another point :) You might (or might not) be surprised that "illegal searches" are very common in policing. Whether you agree with it or not, it does actually serve a purpose. Sometimes police happen upon evidence (such as drugs) in the course of their investigation and can't legally seize that evidence. For instance, they searched something without obtaining proper consent from the suspect, or suspected that the culprit had drugs in the trunk of a vehicle and conducted the search without first obtaining a search warrant. The end result is that the police are unable to charge that suspect with possession of said drugs, however the drugs were removed from the streets. Now ask yourself this question: since the police knew of that evidence, subsequently searched it and located it, should they know ignore that information and let the suspect go with the drugs (or weapons, or whatever other evidence)? Or should they seize the drugs or weapons and then let the suspect go anyway since they can't charge him for it? What is the best solution?
Good point. As an attorney, I'm aware of this and of the pragmatic argument for this practice - which you laid out quite well. I'm a pragmatist, so I'm amenable to pragmatic arguments.
But pragmatism would also consider other factors and those are the ones which weigh more heavily to me. I think the bigger picture is preservation of the right to privacy, protection against search and seizure, and the integrity of the warrant system. For Americans, these are spelled out quite clearly for us in the Bill of Rights, which is the closest thing our country has to scripture. Just a small portion of the Constitution, but revered as the masterpiece that makes this whole endeavor worth doing. And it has some very limiting rules for the government. It includes protection against search and seizure, the right to a speedy and fair trial before a jury of peers, and the right against self-incrimination.
There are great dangers from handcuffing our government in this way - like when those drugs are not taken off the street. But there are great dangers from not handcuffing the government.
From my perspective, those problems that arise from empowering the government in this way are more concerning to me. The sociopaths who occupy high political office can accomplish great acts of oppression and violence. I prefer to keep their power in check as much as possible. And because the police are agents of the government who may legitimately use violence - they can be for great good or for great harm. But in a system of strictly enforced rules for our police that include transparency and deliberate constitutional action, I think we can mitigate the potential for 'great harm'.
I agree 100%. Very fascinating subject matter and something I love discussing.