Fruit from a poisonous tree

[Deleted member 5577]

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 open while government officials attend for different reasons)

Why should this change/addition be made: I feel like this law will provide instant remedy for victims of illegal searches

What is the aim of this change/addition: This should hopefully be a deterrent for police officers or medics conducting illegal searches and allows the game to carry on regardless of the discovery of mingey medics


Additional Information: some credit to collier for this one when dealing with Marcus Hudsson or whatever his name was when he ran in and discovered drugs

 

[Kempotent]

This does differ between situations though, what if there was an unlawful raid but they find a dead body of someone you murdered. Would they have to ignore the murder?

Another is that often times when someone is being unlawfully searched, people often fight back, this would be such a good rule to implement, although i believe a law stating if an unlawful raid was committed (by law enforcement) and the owners of said apartment chose to defend their property, then they shall not be held responsible for injuries or death, the commanding officer shall be held responsible

 

[Deleted member 6228]

If the evidence is obtained unlawfully, it should be thrown out, as it would most likely be in real life

 

[It's ANGRY MUFFIN time!!!]

There was a case here in Israel that the police got a warrant to only search someone and instead they searched his house and found like 1 kg of cocaine and because it was unlawful the judge just told the police to throw it away and release the guy

 

[Smeris]

@It's ANGRY MUFFIN time!!! omg i love israel now

 

[Bnjemann]

I actually agree with you here, but in the event of a large number of narcotics found or explosives on a person, said items should probably be seized but no criminal charges given.

 

[CensoredExe]

The amount of times I’ve been raided for medics running in while I talk to police is insane, and the amount of times I’ve had to raid people when I know I shouldn’t have is insane because someone ran in a property and looked around after they’d been raided by civs and weren’t looking.
Officers and any government employ need to have a reason to enter someone’s property, otherwise they are tresspassing and breaking the law, so why should evidence collected through illegal means be used?

 

[joey]

As mentioned in another post, contrary to popular belief, most criminal - and civil - justice systems, allow for charges to be pressed with "illegally obtained" evidence. Popular examples include Jones v University of Warwick [2003] EWCA Civ 151 where a man's home was trespassed onto and had a secret camera installed to record false benefit claims, this was widely accepted as perfectly fine evidence although it was illegally obtained, however, charges were then pressed for trespassing and that defendant was found guilty. In Singh, HHJ Cooke admitted covertly obtained evidence (secretly recorded meetings with the defendant) as it demonstrated that the defendant’s evidence was false.

Most of the time, police can use "illegally obtained" evidence yet it doesn't mean they don't suffer internal consequences (usually nothing arises from it because police are corrupt and cover each other's arses)

However in PERP: police start breaking the law, JUST FUCKING ban them

 

[Deleted member 5577]

Absolutely they should be seized just this law will prevent unfair criminal charges

 

[Deleted member 5577]

It’s mostly a US law from the 4th amendment I believe

 

[Deleted member 5577]

I mean technically a cop acting unlawfully can be treated like a civ and you have the right to shoot them but try arguing that to a cop like Jimmy Jackson or other stupervisors

 

[Casey Heller]

Hi. American here. I know 4th amendment.

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Devon Stewart same I have a Politics A-Level..... kinda.....

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Mimball I am class of 2020 ;( that's what I mean by Kinda

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Mimball I printed it off and used it to wipe my tears, my teachers aren't my biggest fans

 

[Casey Heller]

Heres some reasons when police DON'T need warrants!

 

[Deleted member 5577]

@Mimball I'll just try and boost my grades, I hear moonpig.com has a sale on at the moment

 

[joey]

don't think he ever mentioned warrantless breaches, specifically stated illegal searches, it's already covered in the law that supervisors don't need a warrant

 

[Sean]

Just like to add that supervisors always have a valid reason to breach someones property otherwise they are just going to get themselves an IA from a salty civilian.

 

[Fielding]

I think the following should be added to the penal code:

Plain View Doctrine:
An LEO may seize evidence and/or contraband that is found in plain view. So long the deputy is in the area legally, and the observation is legal.

Reasonable Suspicion:
An LEO has the reason to believe that someone has been involved in, are about to or is currently committing a crime however does not have sufficient evidence to prove it. Gut feelings does not count. Such as being in the area of an shooting and acting nervous, this gives you a reason to investigate the individual's involvement however is not enough to support a charge.

Mapp Vs. Ohio:
If an LEO obtains evidence/contraband in any way, shape or form deemed illegal they may not use such evidence or any other evidence gathered because of the illegal action in court. F.ex searching an individual without probable cause.

there should probably be more case laws here tbf