For me at least, I think we are on shaky ground when we start accepting the 'evidence' as true/valid when we know it was gained illegally. Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away.

In this case also, surely the crime committed is against his girlfriend, who herself can go to the police and make charges against him. I appreciate in domestic abuse cases this is hard, but this is how it needs to be done to maintain any trust in the legal process.

The guy is clearly a disturbed specimen and needs rehabilitation.

>Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away.

The very idea is that the rulebook is NOT thrown away.

Illegally getting evidence is still punished.

It's just that said evidence remains evidence.

And what does "Who knows what evidence can be collected" mean? Is there a bad kind of evidence when it comes to the truth of a situation? Especially video evidence?

> The very idea is that the rulebook is NOT thrown away.

I think you misunderstand what the rulebook is. The most basic "rulebook" in the US, and the one on which the exclusionary rule is founded -- the Constitution of the United States -- does not limit the actions of individual government agents, it limits the power of government. If you allow the government to use evidenced gathered outside of that rulebook, but punish government agents, you are, indeed, throwing out the rulebook, and the entire idea of limited government.

A central idea of the US system of government is that preventing tyranny by unbound government is more important than punishing individual wrongdoers in the criminal justice system.

Help me understand how the exclusionary rule follows directly from the Constitution. We are one of the few western countries to have it; it's an idiosyncratic response to the problem it addresses.

> Help me understand how the exclusionary rule follows directly from the Constitution.

Without the exclusionary rule, not only would the people not be secure in the persons and property from unreasonable searches and seizure (an ideal which is impossible to attain, though obviously necessary to strive forward under the Constitution) but would be deprived, by government, of life, liberty, and property -- through the criminal process -- without due process of law, insofar as they would deprived of such as a direct result of government exercising powers which are strictly and expressly outside of those permitted to it.

> We are one of the few western countries to have it; it's an idiosyncratic response to the problem it addresses.

The United States is unusual in the world (including among "western countries") in the degree to which limited government is a foundational principle. Even other countries with a strong attachment to the idea of fundamental rights often have strong foundational attachment to ideas of governmental (e.g., parliamentary) sovereignty and supremacy, with boundaries of rights and limitations on actions of government agents being determined through the regular legislative process and not being fundamental limits on government.

We've only had the rule since 1886. Also: it's pretty debatable that we have the rule because we're more attentive to limited government; other countries simply use other, more direct remedies to this problem.

The question isn't "why do we have 4A" or "why should we be concerned about due process". It's "why do we have this idiosyncratic rule, as opposed to the other obvious remedies to illegal searches, and how does the rule follow directly from the Constitution, which mentions it never?"

>other countries simply use other, more direct remedies to this problem.

The usually offered alternative remedy is not actually a remedy to the problem, its a remedy to a different problem (and one which has an insurmountable agency problem in a system with a unitary executive).

> The question isn't "why do we have 4A" or "why should we be concerned about due process".

Which is fine, because I didn't answer that. I answered why the rule was essential to protecting the limitations on government in the Constitution, including due process, not why we have the 4A or due process.

> It's "why do we have this idiosyncratic rule, as opposed to the other obvious remedies to illegal searches, and how does the rule follow directly from the Constitution, which mentions it never?"

I never claimed it "flowed directly from the Constitution", so to the extent that is your question, it is a non-sequitur where the question was offered. I have answered why the rule is essential to implement the restrictions on government in the Constitution. If you would like to pose a counterargument, or challenge any part of the answer, please feel free and we can have a productive conversation. But merely making oblique and unspecific references to alternatives is unproductive.

Some rule is essential to back up the Fourth Amendment. Is the exclusionary rule the only, or the best, way to do that?

"Who knows what evidence can be collected if the rulebook is thrown away"

Pretty much all Europeans - the legality of evidence here is only refused in very intense cases (read: torture). And it works quite well tbh...

I would be interested to hear of any cases where in-admissable evidence is deemed admissable for the purposes of finding someone guilty. As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue.

>for the purposes of finding someone guilty

Also for finding someone innocent. You forgot that.

>As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue.

Because its drawbacks are?

>>for the purposes of finding someone guilty >Also for finding someone innocent. You forgot that.

True, some people may want to break the law to gain evidence to support someones defense. I have a gut feeling this is going to be in the minority of cases.

>>As a European (currently!) I would not want to allow this to continue. >Because its drawbacks are?

It's drawbacks are mainly being that it would be a massive retrograde step.