|BorrowedSolution - 2014-07-20 |
I understand that the police can lie to a judge to procure a search warrant, but don't 'confidential sources' still need to be divulged once a defendant is on trial? Serious question, here.
Generally, no. If the police collect evidence by executing a search warrant, and the evidence is admissible, there's generally no need for an informant to testify. Most states have statutory privileges against the State being forced to reveal the identity of an informant if the informant is not testifying that apply in most situations.
It is possible for a defendant to quash an search warrant obtained through "deliberately falsity or reckless disregard for the truth" under the SCOTUS case Franks v. Delaware, but the burden is on a defendant to come forward with evidence showing that the police lied, and the trial court has a lot of discretion as to whether to allow a hearing on the issue. In practice, trial courts tend to allow a hearing and believe the police lied when it turns out that the defendant was guilty of a crime that the "informant" didn't say anything about--for instance, if an informant reports buying heroin at someone's house, the cops go in and find cocaine but no heroin.
|Old_Zircon - 2014-07-20 |
These stars are for the Libertarian "comedy" on display here.
Incidentally, Reason is also responsible for ruining Peter Bagge for me.
|Gmork - 2014-07-20 |
Another day of "FUCK THE POLICE" type feelings
|cognitivedissonance - 2014-07-21 |
I love the little Age of Reason mindgame conceits we all utilize to ignore the historical fact that absolutely nothing has ever changed, ever.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|