Someone mentioned that she should argue that this is an illegal search. Just for the record, the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment (applying the 4th to the states) do NOT apply to private citizens. If I break into your house and acquire evidence of a crime, the state can use that evidence against you without any problems whatsoever. The search of the bag may be improper from a moral point of view and civilly actionable, but is not illegal from a search and seizure aspect. Bottom line: she screwed up and will be lucky to avoid jail time.
"I forgot"
- Thread starter James K
- Start date
Buzz Knox, please start a new thread in Legal and Political to discuss this in depth. I did NOT know that! You've shocked me. It sounds like you know a lot more detail than you gave here.
How credible is evidence obtained that way? IOW, is there a reluctance to use it in court, for instance? I always assumed so. I always scoffed at the movies where the ragtag bunch of heroes burglarize the evil rich guy's house and find evidence of a crime, figuring that was illegal and the evidence would be moot.
Still learning . . . .
How credible is evidence obtained that way? IOW, is there a reluctance to use it in court, for instance? I always assumed so. I always scoffed at the movies where the ragtag bunch of heroes burglarize the evil rich guy's house and find evidence of a crime, figuring that was illegal and the evidence would be moot.
Still learning . . . .
My knowledge of the subject is fairly limited to my criminal law/procedure classes in law school and my brief stint with the Nashville District Attorney's office (as a clerk). There is no reluctance to use such evidence in court. In fact, cops and DAs love this stuff. As long as the evidence itself is credible (i.e. demonstrably not fraudulent or manufactured), there is no limitation of its use. They don't have to worry about a judge excluding the evidence on a technicality or bad procedure.
The key thing to remember is that the Constitution regulates governmental actors, not private citizens. The Constitution was designed to prevent the government (and the majority using governmental powers) from abusing the citizenry. Hence the 4th Amendment, which precludes the government from acting outside of due process (except for certain circumstances such as "hot pursuit" or preventing the destruction of evidence). There is no such limitation on private actors. It may be illegal (such as taping conversations) but unless the law barring the private actors from performing the conduct specifically provides, the evidence may be freely introduced.
As another example, did you know that if you are outside the jurisdiction of the court, you can be kidnapped, brought before the court, and the court will NOT dismiss the case on those grounds? Terrorists/drug lords/etc. have been successfully prosecuted in federal court after being literally kidnapped by military/LEO. The basic rule is the court doesn't care how you got before it, only that you are.
The key thing to remember is that the Constitution regulates governmental actors, not private citizens. The Constitution was designed to prevent the government (and the majority using governmental powers) from abusing the citizenry. Hence the 4th Amendment, which precludes the government from acting outside of due process (except for certain circumstances such as "hot pursuit" or preventing the destruction of evidence). There is no such limitation on private actors. It may be illegal (such as taping conversations) but unless the law barring the private actors from performing the conduct specifically provides, the evidence may be freely introduced.
As another example, did you know that if you are outside the jurisdiction of the court, you can be kidnapped, brought before the court, and the court will NOT dismiss the case on those grounds? Terrorists/drug lords/etc. have been successfully prosecuted in federal court after being literally kidnapped by military/LEO. The basic rule is the court doesn't care how you got before it, only that you are.
buzz is right. The only attack on such evidence is that the "chain of evidence" has been compromised because the civilian discoveror doesn't know, for example, who put the gun in the bag: was it the owner, or somebody ditching a gun? Or who brought the gun into the school from the car. Or whatever.
Or that they can't vouch for some other aspect of the integrity of the evidence due to lack of LEO or legal training.
I know this because I know a guy who used to be a county public defender (ok., it was me).
Or that they can't vouch for some other aspect of the integrity of the evidence due to lack of LEO or legal training.
I know this because I know a guy who used to be a county public defender (ok., it was me).
Jeff Thomas
New member
Well, I can think of one recent TFL member who will probably check in here and suggest a life sentence for her ...
I do agree off-body carry has too many problems for me to consider it ... lack of control, potential lack of access when it's needed, higher likelihood of accidents, legal issues, etc.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 11, 2000).]
I do agree off-body carry has too many problems for me to consider it ... lack of control, potential lack of access when it's needed, higher likelihood of accidents, legal issues, etc.
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 11, 2000).]