<story><title>Federal Court Throws Out Six Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-eff-throws-out-six-weeks-warrantless-video-surveillance</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>PeterisP</author><text>It goes against the US tradition, but I&amp;#x27;d prefer to &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; have the &amp;#x27;fruit of the poisoned tree&amp;#x27; doctrine but instead direct penalties for violations by police.&lt;p&gt;As it stands, it has the following effect:&lt;p&gt;1. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights of someone commiting a crime, then the evidence obtained this way is discarded, letting a true criminal go free, assuming that the evidence actually proves guilt.&lt;p&gt;2. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights and privacy of an innocent person (e.g. me) then nothing happens.&lt;p&gt;In both cases, any benefit of the doctrine goes to people who don&amp;#x27;t deserve it - the lawbreakers with or without badges and uniforms.&lt;p&gt;For most law-abiding people who value their rights and privacy it would be rational to request that the doctrine is &amp;quot;violations by police in gathering evidence get handled by existing law&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;If a policeman obtains evidence by breaking down a door without a warrant and taking some documents, despite being a professional with special training on what their specific rights and duties are, then let the evidence stand but let also the policeman stand trial (not disciplinary action, but a proper trial) for breaking and entering. Just as for cases of policemen shooting people - at least worldwide, given the recent events I&amp;#x27;m not sure anymore how it&amp;#x27;s in USA.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rayiner</author><text>Bivens actions,[1] and suits under 42 U.S.C. 1983,[2] exist precisely to remedy Constitutional violations in situations where the exclusionary rule doesn&amp;#x27;t apply. They allow you to sue for money damages for violations of your Constitutional rights by federal and state actors, respectively. They are very common.&lt;p&gt;However, police have qualified immunity in such suits unless their actions were in violation of &amp;quot;clearly established law.&amp;quot; Under qualified immunity, the police can&amp;#x27;t be penalized for guessing wrong when it comes to unsettled law, or when a court decides to take the law in a new direction.&lt;p&gt;This decision is quite a departure from the general rule that anything visible from public property is outside 4th amendment protection. So the police here would likely be protected by qualified immunity for failing to anticipate that a court would take previously well-established law in this new direction.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Age...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[2] &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Act_of_1871_(third_act)&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Enforcement_Act_of_1871_(third_...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Federal Court Throws Out Six Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-eff-throws-out-six-weeks-warrantless-video-surveillance</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>PeterisP</author><text>It goes against the US tradition, but I&amp;#x27;d prefer to &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; have the &amp;#x27;fruit of the poisoned tree&amp;#x27; doctrine but instead direct penalties for violations by police.&lt;p&gt;As it stands, it has the following effect:&lt;p&gt;1. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights of someone commiting a crime, then the evidence obtained this way is discarded, letting a true criminal go free, assuming that the evidence actually proves guilt.&lt;p&gt;2. If illegal actions by policemen violates the rights and privacy of an innocent person (e.g. me) then nothing happens.&lt;p&gt;In both cases, any benefit of the doctrine goes to people who don&amp;#x27;t deserve it - the lawbreakers with or without badges and uniforms.&lt;p&gt;For most law-abiding people who value their rights and privacy it would be rational to request that the doctrine is &amp;quot;violations by police in gathering evidence get handled by existing law&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;If a policeman obtains evidence by breaking down a door without a warrant and taking some documents, despite being a professional with special training on what their specific rights and duties are, then let the evidence stand but let also the policeman stand trial (not disciplinary action, but a proper trial) for breaking and entering. Just as for cases of policemen shooting people - at least worldwide, given the recent events I&amp;#x27;m not sure anymore how it&amp;#x27;s in USA.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pavel_lishin</author><text>Might that not incentivize law enforcement officials to hire a series of scapegoats?&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Listen, Mike, we really need this drug dealer in prison. Break into his house, and get use the evidence we need. Penalty for that is, what, a year in county lockup? Plus we&amp;#x27;re just about certain you&amp;#x27;ll get out in six months for good behavior. Plus, hey, it&amp;#x27;s Christmas time, couldn&amp;#x27;t your family use a nice bonus for presents?&amp;quot;</text></comment>