But yes, it's good that you can't be simultaneously nailed in court with illegally collected evidence.
* https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-...
> they need to show a good-faith belief...
That's not how being a plaintiff works, which is what is frustrating about this type of situation.
They do some action which is legally questionable. You have to show standing and potentially damages to be able to bring the suit, then you have to prove that what they did was not a good faith belief that their actions were legal. The onus is on the person without the power with (typically) minimal resources.
> But the problem with that argument, the appeals court ruled, is that courts have long held that police cannot be on the hook for property damage caused in the process of trying to make an arrest.
In that case it was incompetence, gross negligence, and so on. Naturally it's hard to prove in court that the court's enforcement arm is at fault.
And at first the guy tried to sue for damages but that was thrown out - because it's so well established - but still that's the point that should be hammered.
Honest question: can illegally obtained evidence be used to get a search warrant?
Parallel construction happens way less frequently than people think it does, since it requires that there be an actual parallel path to the evidence that would have been available at the time the evidence was improperly obtained. It's basically only upheld when evidence was collected improperly through one means (i.e., a confession without Miranda disclosure), but could have been collected properly through other means available at the time of the improper collection (i.e., if the contents of the confession would have been revealed by a standard CSI search).
This seems like a rather vague claim
Including the two neighboring counties, out of nearly 750,000 criminal cases during that time, only about 3 or 4 dozen involved parallel construction, and most of those were gang cases in which the parallel construction involved one of the gang members turning on his homies.
It's big news in local legal circles when the prosecution tries to use parallel construction to get evidence into the record because it happens so rarely.
It does happen more frequently at the federal level, but they also have significantly more resources to conduct investigations along parallel paths.
I believe it depends on context. If you're in police custody and being questioned, you need to be read your Miranda rights. If the police show up to your door and you suddenly blurt out a confession, I don't think it matters.
However, once the police start asking questions, they have to show they had not created a "custodial" situation in which the suspect was not free to leave (or in this case, to close the door and tell the police to fuck off). In most states, the burden is on the defendant to show that a custodial situation was created; in some states, that is presumed and the police have to show that a custodial situation was not created.
For the record--I am former public defender. And I successfully used the failure to properly Mirandize a client successfully many times to block the prosecution from introducing evidence.
In the specific case you're talking about, always.
This is not strictly correct. If law enforcement violates your rights via an illegal search, they cannot use that evidence against you. However, they may be able to use the evidence against others.
For example, suppose the police illegally search your house and find drugs and a list of customers. You may be able to exclude that evidence from being used against you but your customers may not be so lucky because it was not their 4th Amendment rights that were violated by the illegal search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States#Sub...
You can win a Supreme Court case about a search being illegal, and still have that evidence be used to nail you on the original charge.
Unless you've broken the law (and certain special cases), they have no authority over you. Because of the nature of their jobs, which requires them to sometimes take away a person's freedom or life, they must be held to a much higher level of accountability than your average person.
You cite fear of harassment as a reason for not standing up to police, and to me that says something is deeply wrong with our current system.
This is not true at the border. They can seize your property, and delay you for what the law would say is temporary, but is long enough to be a major inconvenience.
> Would the suspicion have to be announced to me, when I’m asked to unlock my phone[?]
No. Officers don't have to disclose to you their reasons. It's helpful, but not constitutionally required.
>[W]ould it have to be presented to a court, when they are asked to prosecute me based on the contents of my phone?
Not necessarily. In a criminal prosecution violations of the Fourth Amendment can be excluded by the court. The theory underlying the exclusion is that without the exclusion there would be nothing to stop cops from violating your Fourth Amendment rights. A criminal defendant must challenge the use of the evidence found, and the officer must give their reason when the judge is trying to determine whether to allow the testimony.
In the US, you can also sue the officers when they violate your rights and win money damages. That's what this case is. The officer as part of their defense must give their reasons to defend they didn't violate any constitutional rights.
>If they find illegal content on my phone, wouldn’t the prosecutor just tell the court “she matched a profile for the sort of person that carries illegal documents”?
Probably. Some courts may additionally require the officer to give a basis of why you fit that profile, or why someone who fits that profile reasonably is likely to carry illegal things. Typically just saying it matches a profile is sufficient.
Would the suspicion have to be announced to me, when I’m asked to unlock my phone, or would it have to be presented to a court, when they are asked to prosecute me based on the contents of my phone? If they find illegal content on my phone, wouldn’t the prosecutor just tell the court “she matched a profile for the sort of person that carries illegal documents”?
The latter is only meaningful if the case goes to court, which feels like a stretch. There are many forms of punishment that can be meted out without having to go to court. Vexatious detention, confiscation of property, etc.
The former seems silly — surely I can’t impede law enforcement because they haven’t justified their authority to me?