[mrkeen]

> Perhaps there's some important principle of rights that's eluding me.

Convicting the guy is one alternative, but there's another (non-mutually exclusive) option: punish whoever conducted an illegal search. If a warrant legitimised the search, punish the judge instead. If the judge didn't know any better because he was deceived, punish whoever lied to the judge, and so on.

"Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach.

[garrettgarcia]

> "Might not get a conviction" is a negligible deterrent against police overreach.

But it isn't just that. It's a possible perjury charge for lying to a judge. It's the strong likelihood of ending the detective's career or at least limiting it significantly. It's the political fallout from articles like this one. It's the potential civil rights lawsuit bankrupting against the department and detective. It's the personal shame and guilt that the detective feels for knowing that it's their corner-cutting that let a murder escape justice. Imagine having to face the victim's family if this guy is acquitted...

These are big deterrents.

[renewedrebecca]

Then why does this sort of thing keep happening?

This is another reason why police officers should be required to carry malpractice insurance, that they pay for.

[garrettgarcia]

How often does it happen? 0.1% of cases? 0.01%?

[mrkeen]

That figure sounds right - if you're talking about prosecutors being punished.

  A survey conducted by the Innocence Project, Innocence Project New Orleans, Resurrection After Exoneration and the Veritas Initiative looked at five diverse states over a five-year period (2004-2008) and identified 660 cases in which courts found prosecutors committed misconduct, such as tampering with key evidence, withholding evidence from the defendant or coercing a witness to give false testimony. [..] Of the 660 cases examined, only one prosecutor accused of misconduct was disciplined.

https://innocenceproject.org/why-holding-prosecutors-account...

[ninalanyon]

This is how it works, or is supposed to work, in Norway. Illegally gathered evidence is still evidence.

[justin66]

I wonder how well that can possibly work in practice. It can't go over great in front of a jury when someone who is going to be punished for violating the rules talks about the evidence they've obtained, advocating for its legitimacy.

[ninalanyon]

There are no juries in Norway. Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature.

[justin66]

I expect the problems are similar in front of a judge.

> Evidence is merely a collection of facts, how it was gathered does not alter its factual nature.

That's obviously not true. The simplest counterexample is a witness report, where the credibility attached to the facts being reported will depend directly on the credibility of the witness. "The suspect verbally admitted he committed the crime while locked up in my car" will mean a lot less coming from a cop who lied to a judge while obtaining the arrest warrant.

[ninalanyon]

That officer is not relating a verifiable fact, it's not evidence. Eye witness testimony is well known to be unreliable. As are confessions. Besides, you've move the goalposts from how to by whom.

[justin66]

> it's not evidence

It’s boring to argue about the definitions of words, but you’re using English and in the countries where English is primarily spoken, testimony is considered evidence.