Kevin wrote: >If the data 'would have been found anyway' then why >didn't they find it, anyway? > I think most investigations follow leads in the order which promises the best returns, and if they don't know it's tainted they are going to follow a good lead (it doesn't have to be another country - it could be the next county or the next precinct). If a less promising lead is later followed up and found to produce the evidence, it's too late; under the American system, the incontrovertible evidence has already been tainted by the first lead which pointed in that direction. Who wins from that? Certainly not the cop who diligently followed the lead in good faith, certainly not the victim, nor the future victims of the criminal who is set free despite there being no doubt that he committed the crime, and not even the general public who rely on the cop to follow the rules of evidence, because he had no way of knowing. Human nature says he is less likely to follow the rules in future, because those rules set the criminal free.
I still say tainted evidence should be thrown out, but other evidence stemming from it can't... Your authorities are trying to protect your citizenry from the mafia, the triads, the terrorists, and the dealers - none of them are going to follow the rules, but they sure as hell are going to exploit the rules to make sure they can continue their killing spree. It must be devastating for your DAs when their carefully built case unravels... Cheers Russell C.
