Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghshephard | Hacker News Reader

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

I don't think this evidence would count as fruit of the poisonous tree based on exceptions 1 and 2.

1. This investigation couldn't have been the result of other, illegally obtained evidence. It started from the publicly known Silk Road site, and didn't rely on previously known information about DPRs identity, nor on any "lucky coincidences" that could be set up using other information.

2. The vulnerability was easy to encounter even by accident. Unless it took a very large number of login attempts to activate the CAPTCHA, any serious investigation would hit upon this.

The only way I can see the evidence being bad is if they made it up completely. That is unlikely since Silk Road has had similar exposures in the past (http://www.reddit.com/r/SilkRoad/comments/1dmznd/should_we_b..., http://www.reddit.com/r/SilkRoad/comments/1b1lvy/warning_the...)

If they really had his info from an illegal search, they could make a better story without forging evidence by using parallel construction, e.g. claim that they investigated him based on his Stack Overflow posts.

The basic rule is http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule

I understand how the principle works, in part because of this wikipedia article, but what I don't understand is why such a rule has been implemented.

Because otherwise there would be little incentive for cops to follow the 4th amendment.

Are there really no other juridicial consequences for breaking what I understand to be a constitutional law?

Perhaps there need to be. Perhaps consequences much more severe than letting a criminal walk free.

But who would enforce those consequences? The same cops who benefit from the illegal evidence?

No, of course not. Separate policemen who specialize in this. It's not different from any other police misconduct.

What happens if you get public pressure to cut their funding because the are seen to be hindering?

The best way of discouraging something is to make it unlikely to profit from it.

It's designed to try and avoid a moral hazard where a rogue police office may choose to suffer the consequences of an illegal search (if indeed a case could be brought) in order to get the evidence he or she needs.

It's because of such rules the police won't enter your home without a warrant. If they did so, and found evidence of a crime - it would be thrown out. These rules exist to make sure the police have no incentive to enter your home unless they have a warrant (or evidence of a crime in progress)

It protects the population at large from an unrestrained law enforcement system from intruding upon you in a multitude of ways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com