When you invite kids to your house and sleep in special rooms with them and get them drunk then pay off the parents people are going to know why.

I don't fully get the rules of evidence here. I know they are there to protect us, but if someone is questionable to get a serch warrent for part of the house aren't they questionable to serch the whole house.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/ja....ap/index.html

Here's the rule -- they can't go search your lawyer's office. Pretty simple rule. Based on what I've heard, the police just ignored an obvious rule -- OJ style. As with OJ, tainted evidence and piss poor police practices just may allow a guilty man to get off the hook. We should demand better from the police. When they screw up, all evidence resulting from it become inadmissible.

It was a really wanker move they pulled -- getting a warrant for his attorney's office. Sneaky gits will get what they deserve. Unfortunately, their actions may result in a failure of justice for the potential victim.

One nice thing about Englands legal system (from what I've heard) is that in a case such as this the evidence is still admissable, but the officer gets a heavy fine, so at least they can't let the guy go on a technicality, and it should (in theory) make cops a bit more careful.

Sweden has a similar system i belive. Even if the evidence was obtained illigally its still evidence.

Letting people go on technicalities just dosen't make sense to me. I know the reasoning behind it but it just seems wierd and dumb.

I totally disagree. Completely. I like the fourth amendment, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It's anything but a technicality. If there was no probable cause to search my apartment, then *no* officer could have searched it, and the evidence could never had been found. So, the only fair thing to do would be to drop the case against me.

I doubt Sweden has such a system, bjorn, but I could be wrong.

But if a search turns up evidence of another crime why couldn't it be used? And is it legal for a lawyer to with hold evidence if he knows it is relitive to the case?

No, generally speaking, and if a lawyer had knowledge of material evidence, the lawyer would likely have an ethical duty to divulge it -- on both the prosecution and defense side. So, if the cops had followed the law, and the lawyer had followed the law, you'd get a correction conviction. The cops failed to follow the law, so the case should be dropped.

However, a proceeding against the attorney for failure to divulge the evidence may be able to introduce the evidence. I'm thinking an obstruction of justice or maybe ethical board case.