Zappykins said:
Hun? They were claiming, through the Police Union, that the evidence against them was illegally obtained and they can not be prosecuted. In California it is illegal to record someone without their consent, they were claiming the evidence of their wrongdoing could not be used because they did not give consent. The judge rejected their claim. They can be prosecuted.
Other questions?
|
The statment "it was ok for them to steal and destroy evidence" is falacious and sensationalist. Like you said, this is a case of inadmissible evidence, not a defense. There is a huge difference between the two. A defense is essentially an excuse for the crime, such as a claim of self defense in a murder trial. This essentially makes what would have been a crime legal. Inadmissible evidence on the other hand simply strikes the evidence down (as well as the fruits of the poisonous tree) and allows the case to proceed if there is still enough evidence.
The language you used showed a clear lack of understanding or a clear spin. That misrepresentation is why I said that you didn't know what you are talking about.
