[freeone3000]

Absolutely, but, Canadian law would absolutely allow illegally-collected evidence. The trial against the officer invading the defendant's privacy is a separate matter; the goal of a trial is to determine the truth of matters, after all, and if the defendant did kill someone, all evidence to support (or refute) that is generally admissible.

[didibus]

This makes so much more sense lol. I think this is a good example of people accepting certain things at face value and never stop to think about it.

[msla]

So what makes the state follow the rules of evidence? Anything?

[google234123]

From what I can tell, Canada is somewhere in between complete exclusionary and inclusionary rules wrt illegally obtained evidence.

[endtime]

Nitpicking the details of the example isn't really a reputation of the more general point, though.

[freeone3000]

The details are the entire thing! The principles that we should have fair trials due process are followed, but, you end up with wildly different conclusions.