[jkeuhlen]

Intent is the key to the good faith exception here.

If you intend to kick down a door to find evidence of wrongdoing, anything you find is inadmissible. But if you kick down a door because someone on the other side is screaming for help, evidence of other wrongdoing that you find is admissible still.

Here, they are saying that they had good reason to believe they could operate in the way that they did, so while the geofence evidence itself isn't able to be used, other evidence derived from that work is still usable. But going forwards, no one can use the geofence technique in good faith.

[justinclift]

Bear in mind that physical cash is somehow able to be charged with crimes, thus enabling police theft via civil asset forfeiture. Even when the police had no reason to suspect there was any cash on people in the first place.

So it doesn't seem like much of a step to "the evidence was screaming to us from inside, begging to be found". It's about the same level of nonsense. ;)

[nradov]

Civil asset forfeiture is problematic and has been abused but it's completely separate from criminal evidence rules. The physical cash is never charged with a crime. Instead the government files a civil (not criminal) case alleging that the cash is the result of criminal activity. The burden of proof then is much lower than in a criminal trial, and often the plaintiff wins a default judgement.

[justinclift]

Awesome. Now adapt that to evidence inside a house begging to be found. :)

[IIAOPSW]

You can't. Civil court is different from criminal court. The standards are different.

[parineum]

> So it doesn't seem like much of a step

Rebuttal, that seems like a huge step.

[bongodongobob]

And intent is notoriously hard to prove. As long as there isn't an email saying "fuck the laws break it down" good luck proving the cops were the bad guy and every judge will side with them all day long. "Ope, another clerical error, Joe Admin Assistant screwed it up, we were just following orders."

[jkeuhlen]

This isn't true, nor is it how the US courts work. Prosecutors have to prove that their evidence is admissible and it can definitely be challenged easily by the defence. The police need to prove probable cause to enter in cases like this.

[brewdad]

If “I thought they had a gun” is a free pass for cops to murder why won’t cops simply say “I thought I heard a cry for help” when they kick a door down without a warrant?