When a defendant is accused of breaking the law, he faces his trial. He can mount a defense, but his misdeeds are not swept under a rug and forgotten. He must face them. A jury of his peers evaluates the evidence. If convicted, there are consequences; dire consequences if the crime is serious.
When the state commits a bad act and violates the constitutional rights of the accused, there are no consequences. The misdeed is swept under the rug, forgiven and forgotten. With a judicial wink and nod, the state gets to pretend the law was not broken. It gets a clean slate.
It hardly seems fair, does it?
Duirng a supression hearing claiming that the state deprived a young man of his right to counsel and that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure, the state got nervous, as well it should. If the court supressed a certain DNA sample taken in apparent violation of the law, the state's case would be seriously damaged.
So the state simply filed a motion to take a new DNA sample. This even before the judge decided the suppression motion. The state's rationale? Well, we need it just in case the court supresses the illegally seized evidence.Constitutional Roulette
This disgusting charade makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment. Why are there no consequences for the state, the party bringing this action, for its having violated the law? In a civil case we know what would happen, the evidence wrongfully obtained would be stricken.
But not in a criminal case. Why? The alleged crime is vicious gunpoint kidnapping and gang rape. So to Hell with the Bill of Rights. Let's just make sure the state gets its conviction so we can all sleep easy at night. But wait ... that knock at the door. Is that a police officer? Is he entering without a warrant? Didn't we revolt and wage war to assure these things could not happen?
Suddenly, I am not sleeping so well at all. The sound I hear is a new rape. The Bill of Rights is the victim.