Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar
Ok. I get all this. But why does being slightly more intrusive than they were supposed to be automatically absolve those that participated in illegal activity? I can understand if what the police did was without a warrant or approval. Then all gets tossed. But this doesn't seem to be the case. What I see is people that weren't doing anything illegal may have a case.
|
I, for one, am not willing to forgo my rights, just because I am innocent. I think those rights are important. If the police think that a crime is being committed in my neighborhood, they can't just get a search warrant to search every house in the neighborhood. To me, that is more akin to the case here.
If the police are going to intrude on innocent people, which they would have to do in this case, the reason for the intrusion must warrant it and the amount of intrusion must be minimized. In this case, one judge, at least, did not think that they did so.
I do not believe in blithely abandoning my civil rights and I am glad that the judicial process looks out for them.