WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.
Many libertarians have posted this news and are up in arms against this judgment. The bad news of course is that this will certainly lead to more people being convicted for drug related offenses, and to more warrantless searches which will be disguised as mistakes by the police. I think however that this is a good ruling. To go further, I think the evidence should be kept even if the warrantless search was not a mistake but a deliberate violation of rights.
John and Jack are suspected of murder, but Jack has a good alibi and only John is tried. John is about to be convicted when Robert, a last minute witness testifies that he found the crime weapon in Jack’s drawer. Robert is a small-time burglar, he broke into Jack’s house to steal his huge TV. While looking for cash in the drawers, he found a gun and a bloody handkerchief. Since he read about John and Jack in the press he decided to do the right thing: help innocent John and get Jack convicted. Should we ignore the evidence on the ground that it was obtained as the proceeds of a crime? Of course not, this would be absurd.
A cop making a warrantless search is committing a crime, and he should be punished harshly for doing so. However, this does not mean that the evidence should be discarded. Evidence is information and information is neutral, it cannot be tainted with crime. The same goes for intellectual property, if I obtain a copyrighted work from someone, at least one crime was committed : the person who initially obtained the work (the information) broke the agreement not to disclose it to a third party. However, other people are not tied by this agreement and are not committing a crime by using and disclosing the information. Similarly, a judge or a jury has no reason to discard a piece of information. The fact that it was obtained as the proceeds of a crime may cast doubt on the veracity of the information, but it doesn’t mean it should be ignored.
If one is concerned about warrantless searches, one should seek harsher punishment when they happen intentionally, or compensation for victims when they are conducted by mistake. If one is concerned with unjust drug law, one should also try to fight these.
However, saying evidence should be discarded is a poor consequentialist decision that violates people’s right to evaluate information for themselves.