[whack]

> As a way around the constitutional requirement that they get warrants to search houses, the police were claiming that they were simply walking down the hallway when they looked in the window of our client’s apartment and saw him weighing and packaging cocaine in plain view. They also claimed that he was doing this with his apartment door open, so they hadn’t needed a forced entry.

> Our client didn’t deny he was packaging cocaine at his kitchen table, but he insisted that he was not doing it brazenly in the open; that not only had he covered his windows with taped-up sheets and garbage bags, but he had closed and locked his door, as you might expect for someone engaged in illegal activities. We went to the CHA management offices, where they had records of giving Deuce citations for repeatedly covering up windows. We also talked to the maintenance man who had been assigned to repair Deuce’s door after his arrest. The maintenance crew had taken pictures that clearly showed damage to the doorjamb, backing up Deuce’s claim that the door had been kicked in.

> We proved that the search and arrest were done in violation of the Constitution, and so the evidence collected during the arrest could not be used at trial. The charges had to be dropped.

TLDR: our client was guilty as sin. He admitted it. He was caught red-handed. He still got off scot-free.

Not arguing against any of the above. But this example hilariously contradicts the claim that "the system is stacked against the accused"

[ooterness]

Everybody gets the same constitutional rights, and for good reason.

If the cops can violate those rights at will, lie through their teeth to cover it up, and get away with it, then nobody has any rights.

[whack]

Yup. Like I said, I'm not arguing against any of it, or justifying what the cop did. Just funny that the article starts off by saying that the system is stacked against the accused, and immediately presents an example of a 100% guilty defendant getting off scot-free

[dullcrisp]

Because the police violated the constitution by breaking down his door without a warrant, and were apparently doing so as a matter of practice?

[camgunz]

> But this example hilariously contradicts the claim that "the system is stacked against the accused"

What do you think is more likely: cops fudging facts on reports super frequently because it works, or PDs and their shared investigator having time to run down every report for each of their clients and courts accepting the findings?

[phlummox]

> But this example hilariously contradicts the claim that "the system is stacked against the accused"

How does it contradict that? It sounds like you're saying "The system is, in fact, stacked in favour of the accused", but I'm not seeing that here.

In principle, the system _should_ be stacked in favour of the accused - it's a high bar to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, using only legally obtained evidence. But the examples from the article seem to suggest that in most cases, police and prosecutors have it much easier than that.

[qingcharles]

The reason the USA has an unusual system of letting the guilty criminal walk free due to police misconduct is that there was no other punishment that worked to reign in the behavior.

In a perfect system the police would be punished, either civilly or criminally, for their wrongdoing, but a prosecutor will almost never bring a case against a cop who has brought them juicy evidence. It would be career suicide. So here we are.

[watwut]

It does not seem to work to reign bad cops behavior. What it somehow achieved instead is that it is impossible to punish cops unless they are super duper blatant.