Hacker News Reader

Comment by vitus | Hacker News Reader

> Novak sued the officers and the police department, saying they had violated his free speech rights, as well as his right to be free of unlawful searches and seizures under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

> After lengthy litigation, a federal judge dismissed Novak's claims.

What is the point of the fourth amendment if it can be ignored via qualified immunity? Are there any situations where it could still apply?

View on HN

The real teeth of 4A is the exclusionary rule: evidence stemming from tainted searches is inadmissable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

I agree that dismissing evidence that was gathered illegally is reasonable, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Even if illegally gathered evidence could be identified and excluded from use in trial, it does nothing to redress the wrong that was committed in gathering that evidence in the first place.

Namely, loss of privacy is a harm in itself, not merely something that may lead to further harm. The exclusionary rule can prevent further harm, but cannot restore the peace of mind and security that was lost.

OK, but worth keeping in mind that much of Europe (for instance) doesn't have an exclusionary rule; whatever redress you have, it does not include not having the illegitimate evidence weaponized against you.

I think that both are entirely necessary, and neither is sufficient on their own. Excluding evidence that has been illegally collected is necessary, as otherwise there would be an incentive for officers to collect the evidence anyways, if the career growth from cases outweighs the punishment. Redressing the breach of privacy is necessary, as otherwise an officer could harass an individual through unreasonable searches, each time claiming that they believed the search to be justified.

Also to mention, illegal evidence and evidence collected by committing a crime are two separate concepts. The former refers to a violation of evidential procedures.

Modern data troves basically circumvent anything ever being thrown out unless the police are utterly incompetent, which they often are, or purposely violating rules.

I found this[1] explainer of what qualified immunity protects and doesn’t protect.

1: https://grahamfactor.substack.com/p/what-qualified-immunity-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com