Kind of but not really. There's a thing called "fruit of the poisonous tree" which is what he's trying to bitch about. Essentially if you lie to gain a warrant and gain evidence from that lie, or if you break a law/constitutional rights, you can try to get that evidence tossed out.
There are exceptions to this, however. The major one being Police can argue that during the normal course of the investigation they would've found the evidence anyway.
So say you get arrested at your home for a hit and run, and the cops decide they want to search your car without a warrant. They find a gun and alcohol in your vehicle.
You can argue that that should get thrown out because they didn't have a warrant. They can then counter that by saying "We would've towed the car regardless, at which point we would've done a search of the vehicle to insure there is nothing dangerous (a thing they can legally do when towing a vehicle) so the evidence should still be admitted."
Thank-you. I belive this matches what I was trying to say. If the coppers lie ot break a rule and find something, in America, if they could not have found it in ANY OTHER WAY, then it is supposed to get tossed. However, due to rules and practicality, if there is a way that a judge can justify that it 'would have been found anyway', the accused loses and the evidence stays in. That determination orlf reasonableness is up to the judge, and I would believe that it is probably abused more often than not because who really is going to care if a cop made a minor mistake ans ended up finding 25+ grammes of cocaine.
Nick is arguing the ideal that the accused should get every benefit of the doubt and people should be held to the letter of the law when it never happens that way. We all live in a society that breaks rules, but as long as it is not too egregious and within moral conscience, we ignore it.
Which is really besides the point, because police can get a warrant based on pretty much anything.
The standard for a warrant is basically "I think this happened, and I have experience and training that tells me it did".
Yes, Nick is ignoring the fact that a warrant is meant to FIND evidence based on a reasonable suspicion of a crime. You only have to have overwhelming evidence to convict--not to investigate.
If I hear my 2 nephews shouting in the next room, then a cry, and I walk in and see one with a red mark on their face, it is reasonable to assume the one hit the other. Did I see it? No, but I didnt have to.
A bunch of people said, 'Hey, Nick looks like he is on drugs and his kids said some concerning things', then the police looked at the video and said, 'Wow! He does look like he is on drugs! There are probably drugs in his house!' Then they found drugs. Simple as. It is not as if sowmonw told the cops a story, then they immediately freaked out and sped across town to bust down his door.
Because Nick Rekieta is a government bootlicker who thinks that if he gets the warrant tossed then he committed no crime at all. He's such a sad junkie bootlicker that he believes Daddy Government defines truth.
It's more Nick doesn't care that he committed a crime because cocaine makes him feel good and how could something that makes him feel good and he uses as medicine be illegal?
He's trying to get the warrant tossed exclusively so he can say to his remaining fans and people out of the loop "see? I was innocent the whole time!" because they're the only people that would actually believe him.
Nick is not looking for govenrment validation. He is looking to apply the loosest possible moral and legal standard to himself and declare victory to avoid condemnation or judgement.
Nick is simply seeking to avoid accountability for anything.
