CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can this be thrown out in Court?
Tim, a minor who is aged 13 was being sexual assaulted by an adult male. Tim's mom called in authorities who investigated the incident and arrested the perpretator. The victim (Tim) later attempted to commit suicide but the attempt failed resulting in him being diagnosed by doctors as being "brain dead." Without the testimony of the victim who never made it to trial for cross questioning, the case could be thrown out for insufficient evidence. The prosecutor was informed by another criminal that the pepretator had videos of him engaging in sexual intercourse with these children and then sending them out to his victims. In order for a search warrant to be issued, there had to be probable cause but in this case the information was recieved from a criminal who was convicted of fraud so the motion was dismissed by the Judge. The prosecutor however lied to the mother and told her there was a search warrant to execute a search when in fact there was no search warrant and then threatened to arrest the mother when she tried to interrupt the search. Evidence was obtained that was crucial to this case ( the evidence is the sex videos of the accused and his victim). The defense went into motion for evidence to be suppressed by the Court since it is a violation of the accused bill of rights which is the 4th ammendment. Can the court ruled this evidence inadmissible and throw it out? Note that the criminal who informed the prosecutor of such evidence did not know of any other children being sexually assaulted but he was himself sexually assaulted by the perpretator as a child. Now he is 35 years old. What do you think?
There's no witness and the only evidence was obtained illegally.
Unfortunately (since this guy seems to be guilty), this is the law. The prosecutor should have tried to reason with the mother instead of lying to her. Now, they have nothing to convict this man.
That very piece of evidence convicted the accused and there is one crucial factor in that case that played a major role despite the actions of the prosecutor.
since it was the prosecution's rights that were violated, not the defenses, only the mother whose house was searched could claim an exclusionary ruling
Exactly but the mother did not challenge the search and seizure after the evidence was obtained so the evidence discovered at the scene would still be admissible since the only person with legal standing which is the mother did not challenge the search and seizure. Also the prosecutor was acting with good faith and not bias and as you may already be aware, good faith is also one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
Well, the woman DID challenge the search and seizure (and was threatened with arrest). But, because, only she could make a claim that her fourth amendment rights were violated, the evidence would not be thrown out.
In order for a person to formally challenge a search and seizure, a motion to suppress the evidence obtained had to be presented at the Court of hearing. The fact that this woman did not file such a motion after the search was executed clearly illustrates that this woman did not wish to challenge the search and seizure. Furthermore, the fact that her consent was not obtained prior to executing this search would be a factor that would have had an impact on the motion to dismiss had she challenged the search and seizure. However, there was never a motion to dismiss filed by the woman.
outside of legal speak, however, she did not consent to the search at the time.
"The prosecutor ... threatened to arrest the mother when she tried to interrupt the search."
In theory, she could file to dismiss the evidence- as the prosecutor both lied about a search warrant and conducted an illegal search- although why she would want to eludes me.
You are missing two important factors pertaining to search and seizure and i was very confused as well when i was taking my criminal procedure classes.
First of all, the mother has legal standing to challenge the search but she never did. The motion to suppress evidence was filed by the defense but the Court throwed out the motion filed because according to the Court the property of the defendant was never searched. The fact that the prosecutor lied can cause her to be sanctioned but if the mother declines to file a motion then that illustrates that she does not wish to challenge the evidence. First of all, if her permission was never obtained for a search to be executed, she would have had the choice to file for a hearing before the evidence could be presented against the defendant. No action can be taken without a fair hearing and she never filed for the motion to suppress so there was never a suppression hearing.
As mentioned before, good faith is an exception to the exclusionary rule. In this case, the prosecutor lied because of good faith to bring justice for a victim and to prevent a pedophile from making more children his prey so there was no bias towards the accused on the part of the prosecutor.
The reason why the mother did not file a motion is because the evidence put the pedophile away, revealed more other victims and help to prevent more child sexual assault cases.
There was no action taken, only an attempt to stop the officer from searching. But this is merely a technicality- as far as the law is concerned, she did not file any complaint.
good faith, however, is not applicable in this situation. The grounds of good faith generally only have precedent concerning
probation or parole revocation hearings
tax hearings
deportation hearings
military discharge proceedings
child protective proceedings
sentencing hearings
evidence seized from a common carrier
evidence collected by U.S. Customs agents
evidence seized by probation or parole officers
evidence seized outside the United States
evidence illegally seized by a private citizen
evidence used to impeach the defendant's testimony
You are right, i just did some research into it and the good faith doctrine is not applicable in this case because the error had to be committed by the police, and court employees but at the same time, they must show proof to believe that the information they obtained was believed to be honest and reliable before the good faith doctrine can be applicable. However, i am not sure where you received your information from but according to Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice: 8th Ed., good faith can be involved in cases where the police received information that they honestly believed to be accurate or where they entered a premise after honestly believing that the person who gave them permission to execute a search had the lawful authority to do so.
One such case precedent dealing with the good faith doctrine in search and seizure cases is Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S 79 (1987) dealing with police and search and seizures relating to the 4th amendment.
I was taking the exceptions directly from my notes, but if you want I can try and find a list of exceptions online.
However, I did not mention the defining characteristic of good faith- which the noted exceptions are specific categories of.
Good faith is any instance in which the prosecutor acts with in a manner that is proven to have been illegal after the fact, but they had sufficient reason to believe at the time that it was not illegal.
If I can read my own handwriting, the precedent is usually referenced from United States vs. Leon, in which investigators with a warrant to search a suspect had the warrant revoked after the fact due to lack of evidence. However, as the officers had a warrant at the time of the seizure, the evidence was allowed.
In Maryland v. Garrison, it is a similar story: prosecutors who had a warrant for a house were unaware that the third story was a separate house.
You are absolutely right so thank you very much for rectifying the good faith doctrine and bringing it to my attention. The good faith doctrine would not be applicable to present case at issue on this site so i agree with your arguments pertaining to the good faith doctrine since the prosecutor in the case described above knew that the search itself was illegal but still took steps that would have exposed the state to torts and a risk of further appeals.
And no need to take further notes for me on the good faith doctrine as i do have notes on it. I just misinterpreted it but after reviewing my notes, i fully understand the concepts and various aspects that relates to this doctrine. Thank you very much for your assistance though.
Evidence however obtained will not change in it value or content. There has to be enough proof. That is all they ask. There has to be a trial. It should not just be denied.
actually, evidence acquired unlawfully can and will be excluded from the trial through a precedent referred to as "fruit of the poisonous tree", in which the illegal source of the information taints the evidence itself.
In this case, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not applicable because of one crucial factor which stems from the 4th amendment. If you read carefully, you will see the point in the case described above.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is entirely applicable: the 'poisonous tree' was the illegal search itself.
As of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) and Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939), the Court ruled that tips resulting from illegally obtained evidence are also inadmissible in trials BECAUSE they are fruit of the poisonous tree.
I retract my previous statement. I misunderstood the case.
according to Rakas v. Illinois, a defendant can only invoke a complaint against search and seizure when the defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location in question. Since the defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the prosecutor's house, only the prosecution could invoke fruit of the poisonous tree- not the defense.
But in order for it to be ruled fruit of the poisonous tree, there had to be challenge or motion to suppress filed by the mother since she is the only one with legal standing. Fruit of the poisonous tree is therefore not applicable because the challenge to the search is coming from the defense whose property was not included in the search and therefore has no legal standing to challenge the search itself and as you are aware, the 4th amendment would protect the accused from unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore as mentioned before, there was no bias involved in this case so the evidence obtained can be ruled admissible due to good faith on the part of the prosecutor which is one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The issue here is not where the tip came from, it is the fact that the search was executed without the consent of the mother who has legal standing. That case you quoted is clearly referring to the premise of the defendant which was searched. However, in this case, it is the premise of the victim that was searched so thus the case you quoted as well as the fruit of the poisonous tree would be information from unreliable witness that would lead to a search to be executed on the premise of the defendant.
Well yes they can dismiss the evidence because they went in and got it without the permission of the mother and without a warrant so basically there goes the case. this kid is brain dead and the perv walks out free to do it again.
One wonders though why the mother didn't look for it herself and turn it in
No, because only the party whose right was violated can defend their rights, they cannot assert the right of others, which in this case was the boy (and possibly the mother) so without a legal objection of the evidence by the mother or the victim, the evidence cannot be thrown out, although it was illegally obtained.
One can only invoke exclusion of evidence when one had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Since the DEFENDANT has no such expectation of privacy in the PROSECUTOR's home, they cannot exclude the evidence
That is the point i was trying to make. When a person has legal standing it means that a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy and in this case the defense did not.
