This is utterly pointless and just rehashes the same dumb arguments that were dumb in the first place. We've already been over why this is nonsensical and false. I'm not sure if merely alleging facts sufficient for a
Franks hearing would get you one. The court may err on the side of actually giving this a hearing rather than risking having another reason to appeal, even though my opinion is it would be an exercise in futility.
For instance, I think the argument that the CHIPS people, without a lot of the information the police had, came to a different conclusion based on a different standard, is at best disingenuous and approaches being an insult to the intelligence of the reader.
Overall, I think they have some point about there being some ambiguity about what video Pomplun watched, but I really hope that doesn’t convince anyone because materially it’s retarded, hundreds of people watched it happen live on Nick’s own stream.
If there actually is a hearing, the prosecution can also go outside the four corners of the document and just bring in someone who actually saw it live to testify that yes, the cocaine on Nick's nose was there in the original and the two vidoes are substantially identical in content.
But again, is it really reckless disregard for the truth if the cop genuinely thought it was an accurate representation of the original stream?
It really reads to me as if White is trying to invoke something like the best evidence rule, which is completely inapplicable to whether something can be used as probable cause for a warrant, a much lower standard than admissability at trial.
Can the state subpoena Google for the original clip and put this flimsy argument to bed?
If I were the prosecutor, I'd subpoena both Google and Nick himself for it and if he claims he doesn't have it any more, throw on another obstruction of justice/evidence destruction count. Google invariably complies and has extensive experience making sure what they provide is admissable by authenticating it.
I don't think the prosecution has a choice now but to crucify Rekieta. If the detective's integrity is now at stake that effects every other case he's ever been involved with.
Not really, just by itself, although it is expressed rudely and unprofessionally enough that itself will probably piss off everyone who sees it.
You really have to allege a malign state of mind for something to rise to the level of misconduct that justifies invoking the exclusionary rule or "fruit of the poisonous tree" arguments. A mere mistake made reasonably does not count. The entire basis of the search warrant could have been lies from informants, but if the cop reasonably relied on them in getting a warrant signed, the rule doesn't knock out the evidence.
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is, in its current formulation, to punish misconduct by excluding evidence of guilt despite its relevance, to deter such conduct against innocent people as well as perpetrators. The criticism of how the rule operates though, by letting guilty people go, is that it's a huge cost to society with its most direct benefit being to actual criminals.
Scalia argued that a better alternative to the exclusionary rule, a court-created doctrine not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is civil litigation against police who indeed do wrongfully obtain a search warrant.
