[researcher88]

Even Justin Bieber took a plea deal in his DUI case when it appears his BAC was .014 and the cops lied or exaggerated the facts during the arrest. Perhaps he was still guilty of reckless driving but there's no consequences for the cop who seems to have lied. He likely could had won the case or forced the prosecutor to drop the charges.

Beyond facing a greater sentence, to fight the most minor of misdemeanor charges will cost $2,000 to $5,000 for a lawyer or just pay $250 and get it reduced to an infraction like jaywalking. It makes a mockery of the idea of justice.

[EGreg]

I think the whole system of inadmissible evidence and plea bargains is unfair and dishonest. If a cop decides to lie or break into a house, what they find should be admissible, but they should also face the consequences of breaking and entering, armed robbery or whatever. In fact, these consequences would be more severe for public servants like cops. If the cop wants to lie to get a conviction, they should be able to do it BUT also pay for their lie. The mitigating circumstances would be considered and the cop might get off with less, but they should be under the same law as everybody else! If they want to get the guy so bad that they are willing to face prison themselves for a few years for entering without a warrant to photograph the smoking gun, they should be able to do it.

This way the truth and justice actually wins out. As opposed to murderers getting off on a technicality or cops lying with impunity and ruining innocent people's lives.

Of course, the above would still not obviate the need for entrapment defense etc.

[minot]

> In fact, these consequences would be more severe for public servants like cops.

I absolutely agree with this. Police officers need to uphold a higher standard.

> If the cop wants to lie to get a conviction, they should be able to do it BUT also pay for their lie.

The problem is that while an individual police officer might be not very willing to do things like write false and questionable tickets, police administrators and local government people would love that extra income without having to raise taxes (or do other things that invite scrutiny or would make them look bad). I bet if things like these were admissible, there would be pressure to go get them and fabricate the backstory on how the evidence/information was obtained. Granted things like this already happen but I am afraid this might even make the blue code of silence stronger.

Individual police officers are people and have ethics and morals. However, they are subject to bribery, coercion, and promise of a reward for conforming like anyone else. I'm afraid the risks of allowing fruits of poisonous trees would outweigh the benefits.

[tajen]

Step 0 of fairness. Separate the incentive from the enforcement. Fines shouldn't benefit to the same entity who pays the police.

[koenigdavidmj]

It would take a lot to convince a prosecutor to charge a cop trying to help that prosecutor's case.

[sanderjd]

Just spit-balling, what if we had a competitive prosecutorial system? Instead of a single DAs office, two or more with aligned, but not shared, incentives.

[minot]

Follow the money. Who pays for it? How do we pay them?