this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
378 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
69154 readers
3140 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
he admitted its unconstitutional... cant that be used for an immediate appeal?
Yes & no. Sadly case precedent in matters like this typically favor law enforcement & prosecutors for multiple reasons. One of them being where they argue if they make the ruling retroactive, then thousands of convicts where they used similar evidence would also be eligible for appeals or dismissal. Another more messed up reason is that if evidence is obtained illegally, if it still "proves" a defendant is guilty, the courts have came up with certain exceptions where it can still be used.
So anything discovered further is 'fruit of the poisonous tree' and no longer admissible as evidence. But since it wasn't 'wrong' at the time it was done it is admissible?
Is that correct?
It's basically a good faith exception. At the time it wasn't known it was illegal so the police couldn't have known. Now that they know anything forwarded becomes inadmissible.