Hacker News Reader

Comment by xorcist | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com