[nathanbedford]

I think it was the Warren court that concluded that the only way to stop unreasonable searches and seizures was to prohibit the evidence thus obtained from being introduced at trial. There were other remedies that had been used such as civil suits against policeman etc. but the court concluded that all these remedies were inadequate to protect the public from violations of their rights to privacy set down in the Bill of Rights.

Of course this means that virtually every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice because, by definition, he was found with the goods.

The point is how do you want to balance the right to privacy against society's interest in obtaining the conviction of the guilty? Your right to make that balance by way of legislation enacted by your elected representatives was taken away by unelected justices. The idea of the Bill of Rights is to immunize certain unpopular rights from the will of the majority and that is properly done by unelected judges. But should that extend to the remedy for violation of that right?

[Slings and Arrows]

I’m forced to agree with the Warren court. Cops and prosecutors are symbiotic organisms; under most circumstances, the latter have a strong interest in ignoring the transgressions of the former. Removing the incentive for the trangressions is the best way to reduce (although not eliminate) the transgressions.

[Cboldt]

-- every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice --

The "therefore acquitted" doesn't follow every successful motion to suppress. That outcome depends on the contents of the motion to suppress, and what the appellate judge had for breakfast. Most successful motions to suppress do NOT result in acquittal at trial or reversal of a guilty verdict on appeal.

[gimme1ibertee]

Agreed. But, it makes me wonder: whatever happened to “search incident to arrest”?
Let’s say the guy was pulled over for an amber tag light instead of a clear one. The cop notices some flakes of pot on the front seat. He orders the driver out, finds a joint in the ashtray,and,upon searching further, finds a pound of reefer,a wad of cash,a scale and some baggies.So....this person can’t be charged with possession with intent to distribute? That’s insane!

[reed13k]

And that’s because our justice system is based on alpha error rather than beta error. We prefer to ensure the guilty man go free on occasion than the innocent man be convicted inappropriately. As it should be in a free country.... now if we could just reduce the number of regulations and laws so we aren’t all guilty 2-3 times a day.