Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can't remember what the show was, but caught the end of a conversation between judge & defence / prosecuting lawyers where they talk about inadmissable evidence. In US cop shows you often see the officers go around to suspects place question them, or stop their vehicle. During this process a vital piece of evidence is stumbled upon, however it can't be used as it was aquired incorrectly. Why is this? I can understand concerns about the planting of evidence, but if there are enough witnesses surely this evidence should count.

I know over here that our police officers have to be careful when catching car thieves, if the honey trap car is too tempting the defense can use an arguement that the defender wouldn't of stole the goods it they weren't such an easy target.

Thats not how it works. Generally evidence that is illegally obtained (bad search) cannot be used as evidence unless another way can be found to have obtained that evidence. In this instance you can't use any link to the illegal search to obtain the evidence, but if you could get the evidence via another, legal method (search etc) then you're good. If you can't the evidence goes away.

Police officer pulls you over
"whats the rush?"
"I have the right to remain silent and not answer your questions pig boy. Do you smell bacon?"
You have just protected yourself against revealing incriminating evidence while at the same time insuring an arrest. love it.

What would be classed as an illegal search? I mean as long as the evidence wasn't planted or tampered with surely it's still valid evidence?

Incorrect in this context. An illegal search is any search that doesn't meet legal scrutiny under current case law. For example if they stopped and searched a car when they did not have the legal right to do so under statutory and case decisions then thats a bad search. Generally bad searches will strike evidence but there are lots of exceptions. A criminal lawyer (but I repeat myself) or more preccisely a lawyer versed in criminal law would be much better on this topic.

I Polonius were about he could also answer better, as he's doing the bar thing which means he's more up to speed on current criminal procedure.

So if said car driver was stopped because they thought the driver was over the limit, that is valid, but if the officer who stopped it came across something suspicious (that later turns out to be a murder weapon) can that be used?

There is also inadmissable evidence in the UK though no doubt the details are different to the US.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/11/police_unlawful_warrants/

Wolfstan wrote:So if said car driver was stopped because they thought the driver was over the limit, that is valid, but if the officer who stopped it came across something suspicious (that later turns out to be a murder weapon) can that be used?

You cannot just search the car because you stop the person. Was the stop valid? Does the officer fear for his personal safety? Is the officer arresting the individual before or after the search? Was permission gained for the search? What reason is the officer making for the search?

In the real world, the legality of the search is diretly, but inversely, proportional to the billable rate by the hour of the defense attorney contesting the search. No money? Sucks to be you. Lots of money-if the glove does not fit you must acquit!

A cop has to have a valid reason to pull someone over, or a reasonable suspicion that something isn't on the up and up. It's called probable cause. Like if he smelled marijuana on someone, they saw a fresh blood stain on someone's shirt, or someone ran by them in street clothes with someone else chasing them.

If he just targets someone at random, and then finds something illegal, then it's non-permissible.

The whole thing stems from the 4th Amendment to the US constitution, which states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The first part essentially says that the government cannot search you, your home, or your stuff unreasonably. The second part states that Warrants (the right to search for things) must be specific, based on evidence, and must state what they're looking for. Believe it or not, it used to be possible under English law to get a Warrant to search an entire neighborhood for, say, the fruits of a crime.

Unreasonable searches are defined by case law, which generally means searches without warrants, or that could have waited for a warrant to be obtained, or for which there never was any evidence of a warrant. There are many other exceptions for reasonable searches, but the biggest one is when a cop has probable cause that there is something illegal happening, and can't get a warrant in time.

The classic example is if the cop sees a man covered in blood holding an ax: he can stop the man, arrest him, and search him.

The complexities of 4th amendment law are a 3 credit class in law school, and cant' entirely be gotten into here, but Wikipedia does a good job with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

What's relevant to the discussion is the exclusionary rule, which is based on an interesting calculation: the only way to prevent cops from illegally gathering evidence is to make illegal evidence worthless. Thus, it's excluded. The Fruit of the Poison Tree rule measn that evidence gained through illegal evidence is also generally disallowed. there are exceptions, so if the prosecution can show that they would find the stuff eventually, or there was an alternate path, they can still include stuff.

TV shows like Law and Order are actually pretty accurate in showing things like this, but they overstate somewhat how often cases turn on this sort of thing. As for if these rules are a good thing or not, I think it mostly depends on your status. A lot of people see these rules as going out of their way to protect criminals (and the vast majority of people charged with crimes are, in fact, guilty). A lot of others see these rules as simply forcing the Police to actually obey the law. There's an argument to be made that these rules make it harder for Police to do their jobs, and thus make us less safe. I argue that allowing Police to break the law in the name of enforcing it is not something we want to encourage, particularly now that it's getting easier to get warrants by phone 24/7. (and don't get me started on the warrantless wiretapping thing).

And that is why many cops like to ask "suspicious" individuals (i.e. minorities):

"May I search your vehicle?"

Once you say "sure", you've just waived your 4th Amendment rights and given the police a free pass.

You see this on COPS all the time, and it nearly always ends with the guy going to jail as a result.

I saw a documentary about an former US traffic cop famous for busting people for marijuana saying that refusing to allow a search on your car was the worst thing you can do. It's a red flag, and you'll be getting searched one way or the other.

In Britain anyone can be 'stopped and searched' at any time, and naturally, this tends to be mainly minorities who it happens to. I've had it twice though, clean as a whistle both times.

I find US entrapment laws interesting. 'To Catch A Predator' (the wierdest TV programme I've ever seen, and proof that America is a strange and fearful place) would be totally illegal here.



PS. 1000 posts! WOOT!!111!

Greebynog wrote:I saw a documentary about an former US traffic cop famous for busting people for marijuana saying that refusing to allow a search on your car was the worst thing you can do. It's a red flag, and you'll be getting searched one way or the other.

That's because American "justice" is extremely perverse.

Technically, the cop would require a warrant based on "probable cause" to conduct a search.

But not having a warrant requires permission.

But not giving permission is suspicious.

Ergo, the cop will get his warrant!

Go America!

Greebynog wrote:I saw a documentary about an former US traffic cop famous for busting people for marijuana saying that refusing to allow a search on your car was the worst thing you can do. It's a red flag, and you'll be getting searched one way or the other.

In Britain anyone can be 'stopped and searched' at any time, and naturally, this tends to be mainly minorities who it happens to. I've had it twice though, clean as a whistle both times.

I find US entrapment laws interesting. 'To Catch A Predator' (the wierdest TV programme I've ever seen, and proof that America is a strange and fearful place) would be totally illegal here.



PS. 1000 posts! WOOT!!111!

Are you a minority?

I am old enough to remember the 'Suss' laws of the 70s, which helped create the riots of the early 80s. They were repealed on recommendation of the Scarman report (I think) and having been brought back as part of anti-terrorism legislation, are once again creating the same kind of problems as before.

Interestingly, I was questioned by a Japanese cop the last time I went to Japan. I was waiting for the limousine bus outside the airport terminal, and he asked to see my passport, where I was going, who I was going to stay with, and so on. Pretty cheeky, considering there is nowhere in Japan you are guaranteed to see more foreigners than Narita Airport, and it was the same questions and declarations as I had given to Immigration only 30 minutes before. But you just have to put up with it. Being middle-aged, middle-class and white, no doubt I have a different perspective on it than a black or middle-eastern person who might get stopped every day or so.

Greebynog wrote:
I find US entrapment laws interesting. 'To Catch A Predator' (the wierdest TV programme I've ever seen, and proof that America is a strange and fearful place) would be totally illegal here.

To Catch a Predator is illegal. because it was NBC and not the police who were setting the stings. They were shut down after someone who was arrested raised a stink and got his charges, and a lot of others charges dropped.

No, tCaP is not illegal.

It was cancelled because the pedos were finally getting wise that meeting sub-14 year-olds for sex had a very good chance of meeting Chris Hansen, instead.

If you're spending a lot of money setting up a sting, and you don't get enough material for a show, then you cancel the show.

To Catch a Predator had its share of controversy and trouble. Remember the guy who shot himself before his arrest? That whole thing pretty much caused the show to take a dive.

Aurog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:
I find US entrapment laws interesting. 'To Catch A Predator' (the wierdest TV programme I've ever seen, and proof that America is a strange and fearful place) would be totally illegal here.

To Catch a Predator is illegal. because it was NBC and not the police who were setting the stings. They were shut down after someone who was arrested raised a stink and got his charges, and a lot of others charges dropped.

Not true at all the show used local police and the show was dropped because a suspect committed suicide during the taping.
The companies paying for commercial time pulled the plug and that ended the show.

BrookM wrote: Remember the guy who shot himself before his arrest?

Yup.

He saved the good taxpayers a bundle in court and incarceration fees.

It's just too bad more of them didn't follow his example.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

BrookM wrote: Remember the guy who shot himself before his arrest?

Yup.

He saved the good taxpayers a bundle in court and incarceration fees.

It's just too bad more of them didn't follow his example.

You would leap to that conclusion based on a TV show that is essentially entrapment?

The guy was entitled to be found guilty by a jury of his peers before being tarnished with the label of peado. The evidence was obtained illegally and as a result aint worth squat.

Quite frankly I'm glad the show fell over and the convictions were quashed. To see the process of justice cheapened in such a way by being reduced to nothing more than voyeuristic exhibition is just sickening. I can't imagine a judge in this country allowing a case based on evidence gathered in this manner.

You may wish to familiarise yourself with the debacle that was Operation Ore in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ore

Here the police in the UK fouled up royally and arrested many people who will now forever be associated with the stigma of CP even though the vast majority had done nothing illegal. Including Pete Townsend whose high profile arrest is still remembered by many. There were many suicides over this because people couldn't bear the stigma and many of the comments I read at the time, before all the facts were revealed, were along the same lines as yours.

Please think before you gloat over the death a guy who hadn't even had the chance to face his accusers in a court of law.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Greebynog wrote:I saw a documentary about an former US traffic cop famous for busting people for marijuana saying that refusing to allow a search on your car was the worst thing you can do. It's a red flag, and you'll be getting searched one way or the other.

In Britain anyone can be 'stopped and searched' at any time, and naturally, this tends to be mainly minorities who it happens to. I've had it twice though, clean as a whistle both times.

I find US entrapment laws interesting. 'To Catch A Predator' (the wierdest TV programme I've ever seen, and proof that America is a strange and fearful place) would be totally illegal here.



PS. 1000 posts! WOOT!!111!

Are you a minority?

No, I'm not. Both times I've been stopped are when walking round my area (South-East London) alone at night. Aparently walking home is suspicious behaviour.

LuciusAR wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

BrookM wrote: Remember the guy who shot himself before his arrest?

Yup.

He saved the good taxpayers a bundle in court and incarceration fees.

It's just too bad more of them didn't follow his example.

You would leap to that conclusion based on a TV show that is essentially entrapment?

The guy was entitled to be found guilty by a jury of his peers before being tarnished with the label of peado.

The evidence was obtained illegally and as a result aint worth squat.

You may wish to familiarise yourself with the debacle that was Operation Ore in the UK.

Please think before you gloat over the death a guy who hadn't even had the chance to face his accusers in a court of law.

This isn't "entrapment", because in the US, when it's not the government, it doesn't count. Nobody forced him to talk dirty to a what he believed to be a minor. Nobody forced him to drive to the house. He had plenty of time to break off conversation or simply turn around. That was all his choice and doing.

Similar to above, he chose not to take it to a jury -- suicide was his choice and doing. No vigilante stepped up to take out the trash.

Given that the majority of tCaP guys went to jail, following standard US legal processes for evidence, to claim that the evidence was obtained illegally is nonsense.

Just because you Brits can't deal with your Pedos, that's not our problem. Hell, you guys can't even do a halfway-decent off-shore, multi-year interrogation of an enemy non-combatant...

If he chooses not to face his accusers in court, that isn't my problem. Though, it is unfortunate that he wasn't released into the general prison population for a period of time before he took his life. I understand that prisoners take a very dim view of pedophiles in thir midst...

I'm just glad that his name is publicly immortalized for all eternity.
____

And WRT, Operation Ore, specifically, the difference is that the UK prosecuted based on credit card numbers. TCaP prosecuted based on the person actually physically going to meet somebody. Very, very different situations.

I don't see how tCaP counts as entrapment. It's certainly setting a trap, but the perps willingly came to the address (sometimes bringing flowers and sweets even).

This is different than having a cop undercover as a drug dealer go up to someone, "I'll give you a bag of weed for $20," and then arresting the guy for saying yes to the offer.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If he chooses not to face his accusers in court, that isn't my problem. Though, it is unfortunate that he wasn't released into the general prison population for a period of time before he took his life. I understand that prisoners take a very dim view of pedophiles in thir midst...

I'm just glad that his name is publicly immortalized for all eternity.
____

And WRT, Operation Ore, specifically, the difference is that the UK prosecuted based on credit card numbers. TCaP prosecuted based on the person actually physically going to meet somebody. Very, very different situations.

Yes the circumstances are different. My point was that the stigma of the accusation can be enough to drive a person to commit suicide. Lets face it guilty or not someone accused of any sexual offense has had their life ruined. Nobody ever remembers the acquittal, only the arrest.

That's more of a judgment on the system and the media in general, I'm not commenting on this guys specific guilt. But if he went to his grave before a trail we cannot say if he was guilty or not and I personally don't consider a heavily edited TV show proof of anything.

dietrich wrote:I don't see how tCaP counts as entrapment. It's certainly setting a trap, but the perps willingly came to the address (sometimes bringing flowers and sweets even).

This is different than having a cop undercover as a drug dealer go up to someone, "I'll give you a bag of weed for $20," and then arresting the guy for saying yes to the offer.

I believe it was a point of controversy that the logs of many of the 'chats' showed that it was the cops who first brought up the subject of sex, not the person being set up. If I'm mistaken fair enough but if not then it sounds just like entrapment to me.

Besides I don't see how justice can be truley subjective when the its being marketed as entertainment.

LuciusAR wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And WRT, Operation Ore, specifically, the difference is that the UK prosecuted based on credit card numbers. TCaP prosecuted based on the person actually physically going to meet somebody. Very, very different situations.

we cannot say if he was guilty or not and I personally don't consider a heavily edited TV show proof of anything.

It's proof that he exchanged e-mail and knew where to go, and that he actually went there with specific intent to have sex with a minor.

Or are you insinuating that he never showed up at the house to meet with a minor, that he it's all smoke and mirrors?

The most pertinent fact is that he actually showed up in person. That is indisputable fact by Chris Hansen, his film crew, and the police.

LuciusAR wrote:I believe it was a point of controversy that the logs of many of the 'chats' showed that it was the cops who first brought up the subject of sex, not the person being set up. If I'm mistaken fair enough but if not then it sounds just like entrapment to me.

That could be, I don't watch tCaP, it creeps me out too much. I have no sympathy for anyone caught in those stings. Even if the cops were the first to bring up sex in chat, there's still a big difference between that and having someone drive to their house.

Sorry LuciusAR, have to agree with JohnHwangDD on this. In Operation Ore there could of been mistakes. Identity theft, or someone else in the same building using the same PC. This leaves it wide open to abuse and innocent people being wrongly accused.

Going over to a house where you know a 14 year girl lives isn't a mistake, it's deliberate action. You can't say it wasn't you, there is video evidence and if the age wasn't mentioned in the conversation, you can't defend yourself by saying "14? I thought you said 21, sorry I must of read it wrong".

Far as I'm concerned any sexual attack on a child should result in life or worse. In the news over here we've had reports of attacks on 3mth babies & 2 yr old toddlers. Me, I say get the buggers on their knees and strangle them, make sure they feel the terror their actions caused. There was a guy a few years ago who raped and killed his 2yr old niece, the answer? Him & 4 men with baseball bats in a locked room.

Before the Liberals kick off, just think on this. Women with a large chest will always get my sexual attention, this is my preference. Yes there are other women that I will find attractive, but big boobs draw my eye everytime, this won't change it's part of me. Same with being gay, it's part of who you are. This is the same with most Pedo's, so you can't change them. The only ones that you can stand a chance with, are the ones who were abused themselves as they now see this as normal. Minimum is that they stay locked away for life, and I mean life & on their own. Let the b******s die alone.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here.

I'm not defending paedophiles here and if found guilty a prison sentence followed by a long time in a mental institution should be the very least we should do with them.

I'm simply making the point that innocent till proven guilty is still an important aspect of any decent legal system and it not fair to condemn anyone as guilty before a trial occurs no matter how damning the 'evidence' made available to the public seems. Trial by media is inaccurate and detrimental to the process of true and full Justice.

In the case of TCaP the only we things we see are the end results. We don't see the full conversation, the logs of the chat or even if the age is made very clear and acknowledged by the person being set up. TV is very manipulative and clever editing can effectively make anyone seem guilty (or innocent) of anything.

Now this guy probably was guilty. I'm just remaining everyone that we the viewing are not in full possession of the facts and shouldn’t make conclusive assumptions based on TV. Let alone a show which by its very definition has an agenda.

Lucius: Nobody is saying that tCaP gives all of the facts.

But tCaP does reveal the key fact that the guy got in his car and drove to a child's home with the intent of having sex with a child.

For example, in Wolfs comment above, he suggests getting a bunch of guys with baseball bats to beat pedophiles to death. That's Internet chat, like talking dirty. Now if someone were to reveal themselves as a pedo and give their address, it becomes very different when he actually drives over with a baseball bat in hand. At that point, the whole thing changes because he's taken deliberate action which demonstrates clear intent.

Now, the alternative would be, if tCaP decided to arrest the pizza delivery guy showing up by accident. Wearing his Domino's uniform, getting out of his car with the Domino's sign on the roof, carrying a fresh pizza in a Domino's carrier, with a delivery slip with a different house, and his radio squawcking to get moving on the delivery. That would require a lot of editing and manipulation to create a situation where none exists.

It's important, also, to remember that entrapment is when a government agent induces the defendent to commit the crime, not merely offers the possiblity. There are two different tests in the US, with the Feds and most states using a subjective test: basically that the person was predisposed to commit the crime, and the government agent merely provided an opportunity. A few states use an objective standard, which focuses on the activities of the government agents, and if they would only catch those people ready and willing to commit the crime.

to give you an idea of when the entrapment defense actually worked, there is a federal case where a man was asked for two years by undercover agents, through mailings, to buy child pornography (this was soon after it was banned). He did finally do so, he argued, because the mailings made reference to civil liberties and such. He argued, successfully, that he only did so because the agents kept prodding him into it. The Supreme court found that he was not exactly predisposed to that conduct (there was no evidence of other child pornography that he owned), and reversed his conviction.

In TCAP, the prospect of sex with jail bait is simply offered. Now, unless there is evidence that there was some form of coercion, that's no entrapment.

I have no doubt that some of those cases were thrown out, but there are a lot of ways to get evidence excluded, and in a big enough pool eventually there will be a slip up.

The question I always had about things like TcaP is that IMO, it shows how little control some of these guys have over their impulses. I'm not suggesting we don't remove them from the general population, but there's clearly a subset of the population who will risk nearly anything for underage sex. (most of these guys aren't really pedophiles, they're ephebophiles, which is psychologically very different).

My point is, if you've got guys willing to risk jail and stigmatization and all this stuff, isn't that a sickness of some sort? I mean, at what point do we as a society really sink some time and money into trying to figure out how to treat this, because the evidence seems to suggest that there is simply no deterrence.

It's one thing to deal with people that are evil or greedy or whatever. It's another to deal with people that know what they are doing is wrong but seem unable to stop. I almost feel bad for them, they're sick in the head and are undoubtedly pretty miserable people. While I think that they should be punished, and I feel worse for their victims, figuring out some way to deal with these guys would be a good thing for everybody.