Hmmm
Interesting. This may be allowed to stand, because:
1. There is a long established precedent of it being ok for the cops to lie and deceive in order to get suspects to TALK. For example, they plant an undercover in a jail cell with a guy to establish rapport and get a confession, or things of that nature.
and
2. Ultimately, the search was consensual (whether is was "voluntary" is a slightly more complicated inquiry, and the whole crux of the matter, since the alleged voluntariness was obtained via deception, so was it really "voluntary" when the guy thought the search was for different purpose?)
and
3. There is a well-settled principle of "plain sight", meaning that if an LEO is otherwise authorized to look for item A (here, an nonexistent sex crime evidentiary material or lack thereof), and sees evidence of crime B in plain sight, it can be used in a prosecution.
But here, the consent itself was obtained by deception. Hmmm. How is that different from gaining "consent" to get a guy to talk to you using deception? I dunno. Hey guys, I'm the first to bash overreaching or unconstitutional LEO tactics, but I'm trying to distinguish this with an articulable test, from the well-settled, accepted precedent of lying to obtain a confession?
I don't like it, of course, but in some ways, it helps to show the public what the cops really do on a REGULAR basis - that is LIE - they do it now as freely admitted and accepted by the courts in the case of custodial interrogation. A little bit of truth may just help people to understand what they already should know - if you're guilty of ANYTHING, don't ever ever ever talk to or cooperate with police - when they say "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law", believe them! And NEVER consent to a search - that's insanity. If the cops want to search, you can rest assured there is only one reason for it - they are looking to charge YOU with as many crimes as humanly possible! Don't you guys watch COPS? That show is the best thing that ever happened to the people who get arrested on that show because about half of the detentions and searches are illegal, and now the defendants have the proof they need! But it makes you wonder of that same proportion of illegal searches and detentions spills over into the public at large, or are the cops on COPS just being cowboys for the camera, to get some action on film? Who knows, but it's frightening how many civil rights violations are there for the world to see, week in and week out. It's really ironic, too.
But yeah, what's advocating an end to the wosd have one iota to do with said advocates actually taking even one drug, let alone multiple, as alleged? I don't even like to take aspirin, but clearly the WOSD is a dismal failure, and must be ended and soon, as detailed and fully explained time and time again (with impeccable logic I might add) in many, many threads here on TFL, if you will do a search of most any thread in the last 3 months where the WOSD topic comes up.
