2016 Postmortem

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

6. Yes. Suppose a burglar breaks into someone's house...

Wed Oct 26, 2016, 06:41 AM

Oct 2016

and finds a stash of child pornography in the house. The burglar is shocked and turns
it all over to the police. The resulting find can be used at the trial of the person who possessed
the pornography even though it was obtained illegally by a private party.

The Supreme Court case I cited specifically references evidence that was stolen from the
defendant by a private party and the court found such evidence was admissible.

1. The United States may retain for use as evidence in the criminal prosecution of their owner incriminating documents which are turned over to it by private individuals who procured them, without the participation or knowledge of any government official, through a wrongful search of the owner's private desk and papers in an office. P. 256 U. S. 474.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html

For more on the "exclusionary rule" see the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wikileaks "evidence" would not be allowed in a court of law. [View all] Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 OP

This is not about judicial influence. The goal is political influence. DetlefK Oct 2016 #1

'Any illegally obtained evidence is considered poisoned fruit.' - That's not true. PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #2

So, if something is stolen Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #3

Yes. Suppose a burglar breaks into someone's house... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #6

I once turned over some evidence on my son LeftInTX Oct 2016 #63

I would hope the media would not apply that standard. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #4

I can't understand why they don't have ANY standard. FarPoint Oct 2016 #5

The "Pentagon Papers" were quite relevant... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #7

An exception. The issue of concern was identified prior to obtaining documents. . FarPoint Oct 2016 #9

That seems like a "I don't like this stuff" standard. Goblinmonger Oct 2016 #43

Especially stolen by a hostile foreign government Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #8

Not irrelevant in any way. NCTraveler Oct 2016 #29

Did you feel that way when Wikileaks leaked info on the Bush administration? JRLeft Oct 2016 #10

I guess it depends on the source. Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #13

I'm still waiting for verification that it was Russian hackers. JRLeft Oct 2016 #14

It's never been confirmed it was the Russians. I'm still waiting for confirmation. JRLeft Oct 2016 #27

I will pay no attention to it treestar Oct 2016 #15

It doesn't hack anyone and I support information on the RNC, but JRLeft Oct 2016 #19

Yes, I never acknowledged Wilkileaks...ever. FarPoint Oct 2016 #24

You ignored the 2006 dump? Really? Did you ignore JRLeft Oct 2016 #25

Wikileaks has never passed the smell test for me... FarPoint Oct 2016 #26

They have to be equivalent treestar Oct 2016 #41

Podesta was using a GMail account citood Oct 2016 #28

I agree... IndyV0te Oct 2016 #33

So who gets exposed and who doesnt? Funtatlaguy Oct 2016 #37

Evidently those with crap security on their servers B2G Oct 2016 #39

Wikileaks doesn't have anything on Trump that is more controversial than the balls-out crazy shit AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #62

" Have you ever seen a poor politician (D or R)? No and you never will." Dem2 Oct 2016 #40

Refusal to give coverage to fact hacks were done by Russia Panich52 Oct 2016 #38

The Podesta emails are authentic. You can verify this yourself in 10 minutes. yodermon Oct 2016 #59

^^Exactly^^ End Of The Road Oct 2016 #64

Hey man, keep that shit to a dull roar. We're trying to kill the messenger here. AtheistCrusader Oct 2016 #65

Dec 1969 #