tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5651032.post8392974115826084376..comments2024-03-18T07:55:19.196-07:00Comments on Public Defender Dude: NY Times Article Attempts to Undermine Exclusionary RulePD Dudehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06067582064163477160noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5651032.post-71733350238510177542008-07-21T11:33:00.000-07:002008-07-21T11:33:00.000-07:00An excellent post, PD Dude. I am again reminded w...An excellent post, PD Dude. I am again reminded why it was that I wanted to join your team.<BR/><BR/>The exclusionary rule is, at its essence, an imperfect fit, and always has been. But its continued existence is a reflection of the fact that NO OTHER DECENT SOLUTIONS HAVE COME INTO BEING.<BR/><BR/>The idea behind the exclusionary rule is that violations of our privacy is a serious matter, and that the states have done far too little to protect privacy - the High Court had to step in. What has changed today? Have the amounts of privacy invasions DEcreased? On the contrary, they have gotten worse. And the response from most law-enforcement agencies has not been to understand and comply with the law and with notions of privacy, but to constantly demand increased intrusions on privacy, and the roll-back of constitutional protections, in addition to more and better prepartion and support for "police perjury."<BR/><BR/>There is something different about our democracy when compared to Europe and others. In some ways we really are freer. Wedon't have as many socialist-type institutions as in various places around the globe, especially Europe. They tolerate stuff there that we wouldn't. I remember reading a story from the early 1990's about a town in Britain that had a terrible murder. The police got everyon in the the town, EVERYONE, to give blood for DNA, which then ended up in their database. Could you imagine the uproar if we did that here?<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I wish we were more like Europe, in that there is no death penalty and the sentences are much shorter. Plus, criminal justice issues aren't as politicized. But the exclusionary rule seems to be the right remedy - how else are we to combat the awesome power of the police when it is intent upon destroying our privacy?<BR/><BR/>Look at the abuses of civil rights that George Bush has perpetrated on the American people in the form of wiretapping. Or on citizens of other countries (and a few Americans) with the prison at Guantanamo. In fact, with Bush's secrecy we will never know the extent of his abuses. It is amazing that Watergate ever happened, considering the conduct Bush has gotten away with. Is this truly a government we "trust" with protecting our privacy? I'll take a (hopefully) neutral court over the government to stop police abuses any time.<BR/><BR/>Weak as the exclusionar rule has become, it is still better than the alternative: Trust the police to "not be bad" and to "respct our privacy." Yeah, that'll work.<BR/><BR/>Dennis Wilkins<BR/>The Guest PD BloggerDennis Wilkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13556711089950824264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5651032.post-20968351292231133812008-07-19T18:18:00.000-07:002008-07-19T18:18:00.000-07:00It's awesome to see you posting again. It's a rea...It's awesome to see you posting again. It's a real talent to take a concept like the exclusionary rule and cogently explain 1) why we need it, and 2) why it doesn't really work. If drugs are found, or whatever, most people don't care if rights are violated. They should read your post and think about that some more.Egonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05495730233947128147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5651032.post-18120035297421702322008-07-19T00:13:00.000-07:002008-07-19T00:13:00.000-07:00In my experience, there really isn't much check on...In my experience, there really isn't much check on law enforcement other than my ability to get the cops to impeach each other. Many judges in my area have extreme difficulty believing that a cop would ever lie about anything in court. <BR/><BR/>One Judge in particular had this "line" that he would always say before denying my motions of "while counsel points out some differences in testimony, I don't find it impeaching, it's just minor insignificant detail." <BR/><BR/>I kept appealing his rulings and FINALLY the appellate court came to it's senses and threw his language right back at him and told him that what he considered "minor insignificant detail" was in fact "major impeachment."<BR/><BR/>It wasn't until the appellate court smacked him with his own language did he start granting motions. <BR/><BR/>As for the Supremes, I won't be holding my breath expecting them to ever do the right thing....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com