The person I replied to said it.
> The police must be able to investigate and creating a complete blind-spot to their investigation would make their work impossible.
While true to a point, this sort of argument is deployed as FUD to justify all sorts of overreaches by authorities and it has no place in a serious discussion of this topic unless it comes with an immediate acknowledgement that protection of civil liberties should be an equal or even overriding concern.
Anyway, I think you're projecting. Look at what I wrote, then look at the context.
Also, his comment is not FUD. It reflects the original state of things. The attorney client privilege is an exception to the norm, that created the civil right you claim you wish to discuss.
Since you've accused me of bad faith, I'll invite you now to go fuck yourself.
You're a fool if you think context doesn't matter. I asked the questions I did to invite that person to consider and clarify his position, which I didn't entirely disagree with. Context is how a conversation accumulates non-trivial meaning, and a lack of respect for it generates the sort of valueless crap I'm replying to right now.
This conversation, by the way—the one between you and me—is now over.
Who said that? In the end, it is still the judge who decides to dismiss (or not) a piece of evidence if it was aquired illegally.
The police must be able to investigate and creating a complete blind-spot to their investigation would make their work impossible.
> I don't think this is a cut and dried case where it's obvious the authorities were in the wrong
I think it's a cut and dried case where it's obvious that the authorities were in the right.
Why would handing evidence to your attourney make it legally disappear? If anything, it turns the attourney into an accomplice.