don't allow illegal searches to be rewarded with confiscation

[MalekIsWeird]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: change

What law do you wish to change/add: 3.13

Old: Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is evidence obtained in violation of a person’s human rights or obtained in breach of the law, policy or procedure – and it would be unfair or unjust to use it. All charges related to this evidence must be dropped under this law, but any items related to the offence may still be seized by police under asset forfeiture.

New: Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is evidence obtained in violation of a person’s human rights or obtained in breach of the law, policy or procedure – and it would be unfair or unjust to use it. All charges related to this evidence must be dropped under this law, any goods which can be explained to be legal within reason may be exempt from asset forfeiture, otherwise non-explainable goods shall be confiscated.

Why should this change/addition be made: A cop breaking the law to search somebody illegally to then take something they didn't lawfully discover is the same as a criminal stealing and getting lucky enough to find something to take away from the victim is only rewarding them for their pointless tyranny.

What is the aim of this change/addition: it's unjust to just allow cops to take away whatever they found if the charges were dropped so it should be restricted to bombs like C4 or stuff that usually cant be explained as "legal" unless crim finds some rookie and somehow smooth talks his way into convincing him otherwise!

 

[MalekIsWeird]

this is regarding a suggested law which was posted on the city page. if this law does not come to pass than this post was utterly pointless but it may still be useful if the law is approved.

 

[northnortheast]

any goods which can be explained to be legal within reason

Like what? Could you elaborate on what you mean by "explained to be legal" and expand on the vagueness of "within reason"?

I can't think of any situations where evidence related to a crime in which asset forfeiture is warranted would also be considered "legal". You can't expect police to turn a blind eye to drugs or illegally transported weapons where these items could pose a serious threat later on to other civilians. It's why the laws exist in the first place.

 

[Mim]

Pretty sure this is a duplicate suggestion of one already selected for voting?

Fruit from a poisonous tree

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: A new law What law do you wish to change/add: 3.13 Criminal charges shall not arise from evidence discovered through a search by any government official which is unlawful. (a) Unless this discovery was inevitable (I.e Drugs being left in the...

perpheads.com

@Hayden

 

[Chase]

Realistically illegal searches would result in an internal affairs complaint, which would lead to many big problems... Not including possible criminal charges from violating someone's rights. In the United States, say some evidence was found in an illegal search leading to an arrest due to the evidence being located, it would be inadmissible in court. For Perp reasonings, you can only make an internal affairs complaint and a disciplinary action would be taken.

 

[northnortheast]

Pretty sure this is a duplicate suggestion of one already selected for voting?

Fruit from a poisonous tree

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: A new law What law do you wish to change/add: 3.13 Criminal charges shall not arise from evidence discovered through a search by any government official which is unlawful. (a) Unless this discovery was inevitable (I.e Drugs being left in the...

perpheads.com

@Hayden

I think the original post is suggesting a change to the proposed law, such that evidence obtained unlawfully is not able to be confiscated.

 

[Hayden]

The current law you've marked as old is not actually live yet and will be going in the voting stage soon. As for your proposal, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think you can really justify having anything illegal in your own property under this. Items such as drugs, explosives and stolen property can be seized under 3.13 however, items such as firearms wouldn't because you're legally allowed to have a firearm on your own property for as long as you're not illegally displaying it through a window for example. The term asset forfeiture only allows police to seize items related to a criminal offence, which further backs my point that you wouldn't be able to justify having anything illegal on you.