Replies

Follow the reverse thread of this argument. If seized by other than by the strictly enforced guidelines for proper search and seizure, materials such as child pornography, held to be a heinous crime elsewhere in the entire jurisdiction of Illinois and US courts, becomes Constitutionally protected material. Therefore, it becomes a privacy issue to have child pornography in one's possession.

I see an internal contradiction here.

I hear of a good case for TAR & FEATHERS for judges and lawyers!

and that is because I'm in a good mood this morning....otherwise

"I see an internal contradiction here."

There is no "privacy issue" involved. The issue is unlawful search and seizure, which has ALWAYS invalidated ANY evidence found in such illegal search, including crimes far more serious than child pornography.

"Follow the reverse thread of this argument. If seized by other than by the strictly enforced guidelines for proper search and seizure, materials such as child pornography, held to be a heinous crime elsewhere in the entire jurisdiction of Illinois and US courts, becomes Constitutionally protected material. Therefore, it becomes a privacy issue to have child pornography in one's possession."

I don't think that's what the judge is getting at here.

Here's what I think she's saying: The raid seizing material protected under the first amendment (porn) was unconstitutional, because the victim of the raid had a right to have such things per the first amendment. Because the raid was illegal, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, all evidence found during an illegal raid is not admissible against the person whose rights were violated during the raid.

The adult porn really isn't the issue, here. And while I agree kiddie porn is disgusting and heinous (and for which I think the death penalty would be appropriate), the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is what keeps police and prosecutors from conducting illegal searches whenever they feel like it, and hauling you into court based on whatever they happen to find in your home, even when they never had probable cause to conduct a search in the first place.

Don't be distracted by the kiddie porn issue; this is really about the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and not about the "right" to victimize kids. Unfortunately, with our system, sometimes not every guilty person is punished, but it means that we are freer because of it.

Personally, I think this judge should be commended for her stance on the Constitutional rights of the victim of this illegal search, and not slammed for it like some on this thread are doing. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is not a "loophole," it is an important Constitutional safeguard.

Follow the reverse thread of this argument. If seized by other than by the strictly enforced guidelines for proper search and seizure, materials such as child pornography, held to be a heinous crime elsewhere in the entire jurisdiction of Illinois and US courts, becomes Constitutionally protected material. Therefore, it becomes a privacy issue to have child pornography in one's possession.

Unfortunately, there's no contradiction.

When you add up the right to "privacy" discovered in Roe, combined with the discovery that laws burdening immoral conduct are "irrational" in Romer, mixed with the "defining for oneself the meaning of life" right from Casey, and then you add in the verdict that the law cannot be used to define morality and that laws based in morality constitute an equal protection violation from Lawrence, you really are left with an inability to legislate or punish on any important subject.

The sum of the four decisions I cited above really does eliminate the law altogether, as we have understood it since Sinai.