And does the right thing by turning in the pedophile...though he did it anonymously, not wanting to be arrested himself for burglarizing the house.

Click the excerpt below for the full article.

Quote:

A soccer-coach has been arrested in Spain after a thief broke into his house and stole videotapes containing incriminating footage of child sex abuse, Spanish police said. The thief must have realized what he had taken some days after the break-in and called authorities anonymously from a pay phone to say he had evidence of the alleged crimes, police in the southern city of Jaén said in a statement on Thursday.

I suspect if this took place here in the States, so far as the defense counsel for the accused original possessor of the sex tapes is concerned, there would be a "Motion to Suppress Evidence" instantly filed, on the grounds it was illegally obtained, in the first place.

And a burglary is a burglary. It could be prosecuted, though I can almost hear the prosecutors laughing about it over morning coffee at the office, and calling it a "public service burglary".

However the laws in Spain may be very different.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

In the US, that Motion would certainly be filed.

And the defendant would most likely lose the argument. First, there's no fourth amendment protection, because the state wasn't involved in the search; they were simply provided the evidence. There are plenty of instances where fruits of crime become evidence in other crimes and are used to prosecute others. Of course the Defendant's "public policy argument" is that we don't want to encourage people to break into others' homes in search of evidence of other crimes, but I don't think that's a real worry, anyway.

Comments on this?

~~~

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is tainted as well. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was first described in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).[2][3] The term's first use was by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Nardone v. United States (1939).

Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[4] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.

The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
1.it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; or
2.it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3.the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4.the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith (called the good-faith exception).

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

But was not the evidence, as obtained by the police, from a legal source? A citizen turning it in? If the origins of the evidence itself, before it came into the citizens hands is to be included, how do drug trials ever proceed? Would not the possession of, say, cocaine with intent to distribute, have to be thrown out, since the cocaine itself had either been sold (illegally), smuggled (illegally), or manufactured (illegally) before it came to be in the hands of the street dealer?

MV

As I initially said... That vitiates everything you posted.

The only exception (again, under US law) would be if the state put the burglar to the task of breaking into the house. That burden would be the defendant's; he'd have to prove that the state so acted.

Like Watergate.

But what if the person who turned in the tapes only pretended to be a thief?

If the person were at the perps home, was shown the tape, and then the person decided to take the tape and turn in the perp they would still be a thief since they took the tape without the owner knowing, but they would have a cover story to defend themselves from being involved in the crime of owning the tape.

It is all too complicated for me to consider. Something like this can have so many twists and turns it would be like unraveling a large knot.

And that may be the key to the perps defense. If his lawyer can throw out so much stuff to the Jury that their heads explode they would almost have to turn in a not guilty since they would not be sure of if, who, what, or when. Yes, there was a crime. But who committed it?

Well, that's why there are rules of evidence and a judge to manage it all (at least in the US). Throwing out hypotheticals which are completely unfounded for the purpose of confusing a jury is simply not permitted.

At least as I understand it, the tapes themselves have some evidence that implicates the coach, as in he's in them, etc.

And again, under US law, if the defendant believes the thief was actually an agent of the state, then it's up to him to prove that. If so, the evidence is tainted and likely cannot be allowed. That's all done pretrial before there is ever a jury selected.

So many ways to interpret the thread title.

Invalid comparison, Those guys were acting outside the scope, I think the legal term was "a frolic of their own".

As I recall, also, they were actually acting not as government employees, but really doing that for and on behalf or "CREEP" (Committee to Re-elect the President")

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Thanks for the info. It is common in Oklahoma to try and overwhelm a Jury with facts no matter how little truth is in them. And with a lot of the citizens of this state that is not as difficult as it might sound.

For the best breakdown on the Watergate break-in read G. Gordon Liddy's book Will. Liddy goes into the who did what, when and how and is quite clear that he at least was aware they were committing criminal acts.