Ok for all the lawyers out there (Punzi, anyone?), I just wanted to get your opinions on this for the heck of it. It’s no biggie really, just an article I read a couple of days ago which got my attention.<\/p>\n
This is the scenario: A molester,<\/em> is going to court because of evidence a thief<\/strong> sent the police (anonymously). This all happened when the thief had opened a memory card which was part of the “goods” he had stolen from the molester – who was just a “victim” at the time. The thief was apprehended from an unrelated case, but said he was the one who gave them the molester – in case you were wondering.<\/p>\n Now the question is: is that evidence admissible in the court?<\/p>\n The story was popular because… aside from the fact that people were painting the theif as a hero (claiming there is honor among thieves as he chose the moral high road in sending the evidence at the risk of being caught), there was also much hoo-haw over the legality of how the evidence was “procured.”<\/p>\n\n Of course, legalities are best described in analogies, so I’ll try my hand at it (and probably fail miserably)<\/p>\n Basically, If the government takes anything out of your home without your knowing, obviously that is an invasion of your right to privacy (no matter how evil a person you are) – and any evidence procured from such means is “illegal” and therefore inadmissible.<\/p>\n But that doesn’t stop third parties<\/em> from volunteering<\/em> the evidence. When applied to the case, since the thief gave the evidence to the police, that is different from the police gaining the said evidence by an illegal search, and therefore should be ok.<\/p>\n So normally you’d think “sure, it’s perfectly legal!”<\/em><\/p>\n But then someone else mentioned that the person being a thief changes everything. The analogy given was as follows:<\/p>\n If you let a third party access material that can be used against you out of your own free will, like say, sending drugs through FedEx. You have allowed a third party to access your stuff out of your own free will – so the whole “privacy” thing is now scrapped. Furthermore, if the end-user license agreement states that you may not use FedEx for transporting illegal material, that doesn’t stop FedEx from turning over that evidence to the authorities should it be asked from them, or even out of their own free will (even if it will be against yours as a customer) – ergo that would be perfectly legal and admissible as evidence.<\/p>\n But since the material in this case was stolen<\/em> to begin with, he submits that the privacy aspect is still in effect. It’s like FedEx, taking<\/em> the drugs without permission, then turning it over to the police – ergo the material was obtained illegally, and was surrendered in such an illegal state – ergo should be inadmissible.<\/p>\n And so I go back to the question… what do you think?<\/p>\n I believe that it’s a no brainer that the molester should go to jail, but this scenario makes a really good discussion for classes don’t you think? Sort of similar to those philosophical\/moral dilemmas our teachers love giving us in school.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ok for all the lawyers out there (Punzi, anyone?), I just wanted to get your opinions on this for the heck of it. It’s no biggie really, just an article I read a couple of days ago which got my attention. This is the scenario: A molester, is going to court because of evidence a …