Why is valid evidence obtained without a search warrant thrown out in criminal cases? It's still evidence. Why not punish the officer that got the evidence? They're the one who violated the criminal's rights--not the citizens that are now in danger.

If evidence obtained in an illegal way is usable in court, there are plenty of people including numerous police officers who would be more than happy to obtain it. It would make things like search warrants irrelevant. If police could use this evidence, they wouldn't need to worry about Criminal's Rights.

First off, everyone who said that cops are immune for violating civil rights are wrong. There is federal statute that waives sovereign immunity for civil rights violations (i.e. constitutional violations), and there is federal case called Bivens that extends the law to federal agents. Cops can have "qualified immunity." What this means is that if they violated a right that was not clearly established, they could avoid liability.

Second, the problem with holding cops responsible is the chilling affect. Cops make judgment calls that may be different from a judge. If we held cops personally liable, they would stop doing many legal searches because of fear of liability. The reality is that most "illegal searches" are not intentional. Cops are not lawyers and they don't research new case law that comes down daily.

If we don't throw out evidence, how can we continue to apprehend criminals while maintaining civil rights? I agree that if we have clear evidence of a crime, the person should be punished. Of course, such a rule would have the opposite of a chilling affect. Cops would do illegal searches on everyone that they have a "hunch" committed a crime, because there is no consequences if they are wrong.

If the person who obtains the evidence is questionable, the evidence he obtains is questionable.

Fruit from the poisonous tree!

Wouldn't want to stake my life on it!

You're referring to the exclusionary rule. A few things:

Not all evidence obtained without a search warrant has been obtained unconstitutionally. There are many exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Assuming that the evidence has been obtained unconstitutionally, the exclusionary rule hasn't always applied. The doctrine of excluding evidence that has been obtained through unconstitutional means is judge-made law, and was established in the Weeks case, since the federal courts couldn't find a better way to stop cops from systematically violating the constitution. Originally, this wasn't applied to the states (Wolf), but eventually the federal courts applied the exclusionary rule to the states through Mapp v. Ohio. The courts found that there was no other way to keep the cops from stepping on people's rights, and the exclusionary rule takes away the incentive.

In reaching this decision, the courts had to weigh the safety of the populous against the due process that needs to be afforded to criminal defendants. The majority found that they would rather a possible criminal be released under the rule of law than allow for the police to continue to have incentives to step on people's rights. It's not meant as a mode of justice for the criminals, but rather as a disincentive for the police.

Because if they don't have a warrant they have no right to obtain that evidence. It's a right we have that is meant to protect us from unwarranted searches and seizures...

Actually, post-9/11 this isn't really an issue as no warrants are really needed for anything.

As for punishing the officer, states are generally immune to being sued and this protection extends to agents of that state, in this case the officer.


We are a nation of law. If the police and the government cannot follow the law, then the government is unfit to rule and/or the police are unfit to enforce those rules.

Because it would be too much temptation for cops to "make a mistake", and then say that the end justified the means. It is like accepting a bribe to do "what you would have done anyway". It starts down the road to bent cops, and that is a place no-one wants to go. Those who are given extra powers to enforce the law have to have higher standards, not lower, than the rest of us.

Totally agree w/ you. Too many freedoms in our country- victims have so many FEWER rights than the criminals- all in the interest in getting a fair trial- and THAT is subjective.

STILL many innocent ppl in jhil because of cops WANTING them to be guilty.

Fact fro fiction, truth from diction. Because if that were allowed you would have no privacy and be at peril. Say someone you kow losely or through another friend was involved in criminal activity but YOU did not know it. Lets say you gave that person a ride in your car. You drop them off and go about your way. The feds etc were tailing them, and because they were in your car, they tailed you. Then when you leave your car they Slim Jim their way in and search it. They find trace of explosives left by the guy you gave a ride or some other evidence linking to criminal activity. Not only do they arrest him but they arrest you as a co-conspirator. Would you believe that was fair?

The evidence obtained from an illegal search is inadmissable because of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle. However, this doesn't necessarily put the entire case in jeopardy. If the prosecutor can show that the evidence could also be obtained from a perfectly legal source, then it would be admissable.

As an example, the marijuana bag obtained from an illegal search couldn't be used in court, but if a legal search of the drug dealer's records revealed that X grams of marijuana were sold to customer Y, then that evidence could be used.

Well I think its pretty stupid my self but if you were ever in a situation where u were in the wrong place at the wrong time and the cops were dirty who's to say they didn't plant the evidence, it has to be an on going investigation of whats been happening that way prosecutors have history when they put them away I mean they probably still can but it just wouldn't be a spur of the moment thing

the police came in my fiancaes uncles house and did not have a warrant saw a antique rifle made us sit on couch and searched us before going to the bathroom and waited three hrs in house on ohone to get a warrant and then found a whole lot of guns they where registerd to his decicced uncle but now they are trying to say that all those guns are his becouse he is a fellon somebody please help me

That's a good question that has been bothering me as rather pointless. When the suspect is innocent he was still violated by illegal search while the guilty suspect simply beats the wrap. How does that make sense? Instead there should just be liability on the police for their conduct.

most lawmen/women have immunity given to them by the govt..

Its called "fruits of the crime". just because the evidence was not legally seized, does not mean the evidence cannot be used for other reasons.

Here is an example:

Suppose the evidence cannot be used in court, but doing a Field Interview of the people involved, leads to outstanding warrants? these arrests will take these wanted criminals off the street and more safety for you.

Generally, in law enforcement, when one door closes, another opens. it takes a smart cop to use this information to his and the publics advantage.

All is not lost, just because of a bad evidence seizure.

I do not receive comments for unknow reasons, so if you want to comment, please do it in a hurry or this answer will fade into the sunset.......john

This is why we have provisions in the Bill of Rights for the rights of the accused. Since the 14th amendment incorporated many of the Bill of Rights amendments to state actions, the unreasonable search and seizure rule of the 4th amendment applies to all police. If we didn't have this, then the nation would be drastically different. For example, Roe would have lost in Roe v. Wade and abortions could be made illegal. The so-called right to privacy was generated by combining several amendments, and the 4th is a very important one to their case. As is the 3rd, hilariously enough.

Fruits of a crime may be obtained illegaly by the police.

One case may be dismissed because of this, BUT a much bigger case can be made using the information obtained from the illegal search.

Does this make sense?

In other words, if a police officer knows he will lose one case, because of the above, the officer is willing to do so in order to obtain information for a much bigger arrest and conviction.

Fruits of a crime, in one form or another, are never dismissed.

I am still in college, and may not be as educated as the above. However, as a citizen I feel strongly that if it were acceptable for police, strangers, anyone to submit evidence they obtained without a warrant, who then could prove that it is legit evidence, and not something officer Hernandes wants to prove was used in the beating of his cousin? It is law, and order. I understand why someone would want it to be acceptable, loss of a loved one, etc. However, it simply must not be acceptable.

Its considered fruit of the poison vine.
Bad people have more rights than the rest of us.

Its about a balance. You need to send society messages about police as well as criminal conduct, messages about civil rights as well as the safety of civil society.

Courts are willing to throw out "personal use" blow obtained without a warrant because they feel that the violation of our civil rights is not worth it just to get someone for a dime baggie of coke. A loaded weapon in the hands of a gangbanger with a record however is more likely to be kept in as evidence despite a warrantless search because of the imminent harm prospect. There public safety is deemed more important than civil rights on at least one level. You see the gangbanger in this case needs to be taken off the street and or his weapon seized immediately because if you don't do it then, the next time you are called to pick him up it might be too late for some yet to be identified victim. However because there are such things as 24 hour duty judges, tele-warrants etc, the tendency by most judges would be to throw out warrantless evidence because it is so easy for a cop to get a warrant and they are trained to do so. Only in extreme cases would/should a judge allow such evidence to be used.

To understand the admission of warrantless evidence however, you have to understand things like pre-bording searches at airports, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In these instances you are dealing with American citizens none of whom have waived their rights as American citizens however the law deems it that the exigency of their circumstances in those situations are suchthat a brief cessation of their abilities to exercise said rights in absolute terms is best for all of society including the individuals in question themselves. The main issue being the protection of life and limb.