From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 18:50:54 PST
To: root <root@einstein.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway...
In-Reply-To: <199502090123.TAA01134@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950208214510.14387A-100000@access4.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, root wrote:

> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 19:23:31 -0600 (CST)
> From: root <root@einstein.ssz.com>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Not necessarily crypto but scary anyway...
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> A friend advises me that today House Bill 666 passed. This supposedly would
> allow police officers to use evidence collected illegaly if they 'believed'
> that it was collected in good faith.
> 
> Any word on it?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

As I understand the bill,(Though I didn't know it was up for passge...)
 this is merely a restatement of the current judicial doctrine which 
prevents officers acting in good faith from being hindered by an 
illegally issued warrant.  In essence the concept is that the 4th 
ammendment is intended to deter police misconduct by kicking out evidence 
gathered illegally.  Once a judge issues a warrant, and assuming it is 
issued illegally, but with no knowledge by the officers who execute the 
search, there is no longer any deterant value in supressing the evidence 
and as such it would be "counterproductive" to bar it from presentment.

This isn't really passage of "new" law, but legislative clairification of 
current judicial doctrine.  If there is enough interest, I would be happy 
to post cites to the key cases establishing the "good faith" exception to 
exclusion.

-uni- (Dark)

--
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!