Who watches the watchers? (Police/CSI question)

[Shroom Man 777]

I dunno if SLAM is the right place, if it isn't, then feel free to move it.

Anyway, what happens if a police investigator/s plants false evidence on the scene of the crime, thus framing an innocent person? If it's admitted as evidence, there's nothing the suspect can do, is there? The police are the ones who do it all and no one's watching them - so if they abuse their powers, who can stop them?

[neoolong]

The defendant's lawyer will have access to what evidence is going to be used against him doesn't he? Ideally, he would be able to do something about it. Though he's in a disadvantage if the other side is crooked.

[Shroom Man 777]

And what the heck can the lawyer do? Isn't the evidence submitted by the police generally considered untouchable? I've never heard of the defense scrutinizing the evidence forensically.

But then again, I don't hear much and I'm not sure if forensically is a word. Can actual cops/lawyers help me out there?

[Darth Wong]

This is not a hypothetical when you look at eyewitness testimony, which has been often coached by police in order to win a conviction. It sucks, but I'm not sure what solution there is.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is why we have Internal Affairs, but even they are not omniscient and are still human. The only thing you can do is try and run a tight ship and hope that bent cops and the like are routed out quickly.

[Shroom Man 777]

And in the case of forensics evidence, it gets even worse, right?

Well, that does suck...

How prevalent is it?

[Stofsk]

The defendant's lawyer will have access to what evidence is going to be used against him doesn't he?

Usually. But the cops only provide what evidence they think is relevant, rather than ALL the evidence they collect. The defence can (and should!) subpoena ALL evidence compiled, so that they can properly prepare a defence and scrutinise all aspects of the prosecution's case.

[raptor3x]

I dunno if SLAM is the right place, if it isn't, then feel free to move it.

Anyway, what happens if a police investigator/s plants false evidence on the scene of the crime, thus framing an innocent person? If it's admitted as evidence, there's nothing the suspect can do, is there? The police are the ones who do it all and no one's watching them - so if they abuse their powers, who can stop them?

Wasn't there a case of this involving some racist cop planting something at the scene of a crime where some dude murdered his wife and her lover? Geee, I can't remember the names of the parties involved. Must have been some obscure case...

[Stofsk]

This is why we have Internal Affairs, but even they are not omniscient and are still human.

I am very interested in how other states and countries set up their Internal Affairs organisations. In Victoria, I understand that the Office of Police Integrity is made up of mainstream officers who rotate in and out of the regular service after several years in the OPI. Their identities are presumably known, and they come under constant attack from both the Police Unions as well as the media.

I've heard that in other countries IA officers are undercover and the organisation is separate from the Police Force they're tasked to observe. Other systems I've heard about is civilian oversight of the Police Force. I am curious as to how this is handled outside of here.

[Straha]

And what the heck can the lawyer do? Isn't the evidence submitted by the police generally considered untouchable? I've never heard of the defense scrutinizing the evidence forensically.

The defense can, and often does, use prosecution expert witnesses to attack evidence forensically in cross-examination. This has gotten an awful lot harder nowadays because we can be a lot more definitive thanks to stuff like DNA testing.

That being said evidence submitted by Police can be suppressed if a defense attorney raises objections either on the validity of the evidence (though this would have to be substantiated) or on the legality of finding the evidence (I.E. If the police find the gun used to kill the victim without a search warrant [and it's not in a place where they would have inevitably discovered it].) And if the evidence is suppressed it can't be brought up at trial by the prosecution.

[Keevan_Colton]

And what the heck can the lawyer do? Isn't the evidence submitted by the police generally considered untouchable? I've never heard of the defense scrutinizing the evidence forensically.

The defense can, and often does, use prosecution expert witnesses to attack evidence forensically in cross-examination. This has gotten an awful lot harder nowadays because we can be a lot more definitive thanks to stuff like DNA testing.

That being said evidence submitted by Police can be suppressed if a defense attorney raises objections either on the validity of the evidence (though this would have to be substantiated) or on the legality of finding the evidence (I.E. If the police find the gun used to kill the victim without a search warrant [and it's not in a place where they would have inevitably discovered it].) And if the evidence is suppressed it can't be brought up at trial by the prosecution.

That part of US law always seems fucking retarded to me.

[Temjin]

(I.E. If the police find the gun used to kill the victim without a search warrant [and it's not in a place where they would have inevitably discovered it].)

That part of US law always seems fucking retarded to me.

If you realise it's to curb police abuse, it makes perfect sense. If that wasn't around, what's to stop the police from making an illegal search? With that in place, the police have to go through proper channels and obtain a search warrant. If they don't, the evidence will be thrown out and and it will encourage the police officers to follow procedure during the next investigation.

[Keevan_Colton]

Letting people literally away with murder to ensure your paperwork is in order...

...and this isnt retarded in your estimation?

[Temjin]

No, it isn't.

Everyone has a right to privacy. If we allow evidence obtained during an illegal search to be admitted, that right to privacy is gone. What's then to stop the police from making illegal searchs in every suspect's home?

Sometimes, you have to let someone get away with a crime to protect the rights of others.

[Keevan_Colton]

Why is the "right to privacy" of such importance it should allow murderers to escape justice?

The only reason for this fucking nonsense is the US constitution has it written in it. Other countries dont have that same fucking nonsense, even Canada will say "shove it" if excluding evidence would allow a murderer to get off.

[Temjin]

I concede the arguement then. While I still agree with it, I have no idea how else to defend it. And while I think it might open the door to larger police abuse, I have no way to prove that besides a line of thought that might very well be a slippery slope. As you say, a number of other countries are getting along fine without it.

[Melchior]

Letting people literally away with murder to ensure your paperwork is in order...

...and this isnt retarded in your estimation?

It's the mark of a system that prefers to let the guilty escape to punishing innocents. I might be a problem if it happens really often, but besides that the alternative seems to be worse.
Are you sure that other systems permit usage of illegally obtained evidence?

[Keevan_Colton]

How exactly does excluding evidence protect the innocent?

If someone is innocent, then there surely is no evidence of the crime to exclude?

[Zero]

It's got nothing to do with protecting the innocent. It's just that there's a constitutional right to certain freedoms, and if we allowed evidence obtained illegally to be admissable in court, then police would have no incentives to respects said rights.

[Melchior]

How exactly does excluding evidence protect the innocent?

If someone is innocent, then there surely is no evidence of the crime to exclude?

Illegally obtained evidence could be real evidence with mistakes in paperwork or evidence that was actually planted. Not using it is a guarantee to the innocent.

[Keevan_Colton]

Illegally obtained evidence could be real evidence with mistakes in paperwork or evidence that was actually planted. Not using it is a guarantee to the innocent.

Bullshit. Any evidence could be planted thus by that logic no evidence should be allowed, ever.

[Melchior]

Bullshit. Any evidence could be planted thus by that logic no evidence should be allowed, ever.

"Paperwork" exists for a reason, even if it may be too cumbersome.
Without rules for its acquistion, evidence has no value.

[Zero]

Bullshit. Any evidence could be planted thus by that logic no evidence should be allowed, ever.

"Paperwork" exists for a reason, even if it may be too cumbersome.
Without rules for its acquistion, evidence has no value.

You can put faulty evidence through the same system as you could put real evidence through. How does any amount of paperwork alter that?

[Melchior]

You can put faulty evidence through the same system as you could put real evidence through. How does any amount of paperwork alter that?

"Paperwork" supposedly brings in additional external supervision, for example, in the form of the judge that has to issue the warrant.

[Zero]

You can put faulty evidence through the same system as you could put real evidence through. How does any amount of paperwork alter that?

"Paperwork" supposedly brings in additional external supervision, for example, in the form of the judge that has to issue the warrant.

And how will the presence of a warrant ensure that evidence is valid? Adding another layer doesn't mean anything, it just means that a warrant has been issued. Real evidence can be found with or without a warrant, and fake evidence can be faked with or without a warrant too. What's the difference?