[Wuli]

While it should be an offense, under law, to illegally obtain evidence, and those who do it or allow it should be dealt with, under the law. However, that should be held separate from “the evidence”, as it pertains to any facts in a case; it “the evidence” should not be condemned; it is either germane to a case, or not, as a trial and a jury can determine.

People should not be “not guilty” by reason of good evidence, that might have convicted them, being denied the light of day. Condemn HOW some evidence may have been obtained, and those responsible - not the evidence.

[FredZarguna]

I might -- but probably wouldn't -- agree with you in a perfect world. But we don't live there. The effect of the exclusionary rule is to deter crime, and it is very effective in doing so. Your approach would encourage law enforcement to make a calculation about whether the evidentiary crime they're about to commit is insignificant compared to the evidence they may [or may not] obtain, and even whether their criminal wrong-doing would even be detected or punished.

This is nothing more than they kind of perverted cost/benefit analysis that criminals employ in their decision making, and we should reject it out of hand.

Sorry, but too many police officers already have significant personality/authority issues without giving them the incentive to develop a criminal mentality as well. Even with the current strictures, too many already do.