NationStates Jolt Archive

Court Slams Wis. Cops In Coma Sex Case

"Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/national/main4441013.shtml?source=mostpop_story


Was this the correct decision?

No. Also that'd be rape.

:eek:

Er, yes?

Almost funny, that case.

This is a can of worms, no matter what I do say about this, there is a problem regarding it. For the time being, I can't see how the police violating the man's right of privacy inmediately makes evidence invalid. I would make the cops pay for violating the man's privacy, imposing whatever sanctions the law establishes, and THEN I would use the tape as evidence.

Eww...And I thought it was just dead women that didn't say "no".

I just asked my girlfriend how she would feel about me doing it to her. She's fine with it. I mean, better doing it with your comatose wife than cheating on her and doing it with someone else.

I'm sure you can find somewhere a doctor who can add that having sex with her could actually improve her condition, so he was administering a treatment. With the blessing of the family, including himself and the sister.

Almost funny, that case.

I can't see how the police violating the man's right of privacy inmediately makes evidence invalid. I would make the cops pay for violating the man's privacy, imposing whatever sanctions the law establishes, and THEN I would use the tape as evidence.

You just answered your own question. When the police illegally aquire evidence, the sanctions that the law allows is the removal of said evidence from the trial.

You just answered your own question. When the police illegally aquire evidence, the sanctions that the law allows is the removal of said evidence from the trial.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am aware of how it works, I just don't agree with it.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am aware of how it works, I just don't agree with it.

I agree with it because it's the only way to truly protect against it.

Say you have some cop who has to decide between illegally acquiring evidence or not, but he knows without that evidence there's no way to get a conviction. The crime is very serious and so this cop decided it's worth the punishment he'd receive to ensure the suspect gets convicted.

At that point, your rights are worth beans.

Even worse, it opens the door to false evidence. "Where did you find that bag of cocaine, officer?" "Well, I admit I entered the suspect's home without a warrant to get it." "Alright well we're gonna have to suspend you but at least we can use this evidence." "Sweet" (Meanwhile he hopes nobody notices the true source of the cocaine was an old evidence locker.)

Even worse, it opens the door to false evidence. "Where did you find that bag of cocaine, officer?" "Well, I admit I entered the suspect's home without a warrant to get it." "Alright well we're gonna have to suspend you but at least we can use this evidence." "Sweet" (Meanwhile he hopes nobody notices the true source of the cocaine was an old evidence locker.)

Or having the cops beat a confession out of you, then paying you $500 and saying sorry and then sending you to jail for 50 years.....But back onto topic..

Reminds me of "Kill Bill"

its a very sad story and im glad that the cops cant videotape without a warrant.

I agree with it because it's the only way to truly protect against it.

Say you have some cop who has to decide between illegally acquiring evidence or not, but he knows without that evidence there's no way to get a conviction. The crime is very serious and so this cop decided it's worth the punishment he'd receive to ensure the suspect gets convicted.

At that point, your rights are worth beans.

Even worse, it opens the door to false evidence. "Where did you find that bag of cocaine, officer?" "Well, I admit I entered the suspect's home without a warrant to get it." "Alright well we're gonna have to suspend you but at least we can use this evidence." "Sweet" (Meanwhile he hopes nobody notices the true source of the cocaine was an old evidence locker.)

But it's a blanket regulation. This is about the privacy right. Not about warrants. Your cocaine example falls completely out of comparison. If a cop is willing to face punishment for getting evidence hard, that could or not could get a conviction, (because in the end is the jury's decision), is indeed a great show of commitment to his job by the cop.

Violating privacy rights by recording someone shouldn't open the door to false evidence. Other violations could.

Regarding you, Intestinal Fluids, you went even far off the mark. Beating you violates some of your rights, but not your privacy rights. This discussion is also about privacy rights, I spoke privacy rights, not any right, so the argument still remains on topic, and you both are the ones derailing it by hyperbolic comparisons.

I question the validity of the statement that he had an expectation of privacy in her nursing home room, considering he was, at best, a visitor.

But the court found that he did, and, given that finding, the ruling was proper.

edit: actually, the article said they had a warrant, so I'm unsure where the illegality of the search comes from.

I would make the cops pay for violating the man's privacy, imposing whatever sanctions the law establishes, and THEN I would use the tape as evidence.

That precedent is far too dangerous to set. You'd just be left with a huge number of passionate cops willing to face the punishment and get the evidence in an unconstitutional manner so they can get the people they have an agenda against locked up.

its a very sad story and im glad that the cops cant videotape without a warrant.

Interestingly enough, they had a warrant.

That precedent is far too dangerous to set. You'd just be left with a huge number of passionate cops willing to face the punishment and get the evidence in an unconstitutional manner so they can get the people they have an agenda against locked up.

I guess that dpepends on the sanctions, but to discard perfectly pertinent and important evidence for a privacy violation seems like a technicism to me. I do think the cases should be ruled independently. cops must be punished indeed, but the fact that the evidence is there and it is valid and incriminating stands.

I question the validity of the statement that he had an expectation of privacy in her nursing home room, considering he was, at best, a visitor.


You could argue that the nursing home was in essence an extension of a hospital. Privacy during the most intimate moments of a loved ones death (where often at that point patient is unable to give consent to anything almost by definition) is considered a sacrosanct right for most despite the fact its a public hospital, and placing a camera at everyones deathbed would be considered an invasion of privacy virtually universally.

I guess that dpepends on the sanctions, but to discard perfectly pertinent and important evidence for a privacy violation seems like a technicism to me. I do think the cases should be ruled independently. cops must be punished indeed, but the fact that the evidence is there and it is valid and incriminating stands.

We should not reward police for violating the law.

I guess that dpepends on the sanctions, but to discard perfectly pertinent and important evidence for a privacy violation seems like a technicism to me. I do think the cases should be ruled independently. cops must be punished indeed, but the fact that the evidence is there and it is valid and incriminating stands.

It is a bad thing that the evidence has to be discarded, but many people are saying that such action is justified by the greater good that will come out of it.

I guess that dpepends on the sanctions, but to discard perfectly pertinent and important evidence for a privacy violation seems like a technicism to me. I do think the cases should be ruled independently. cops must be punished indeed, but the fact that the evidence is there and it is valid and incriminating stands.

What about cohersed confessions?

Was this the correct decision?

You can euthanize all women in long-term coma, then you won't have these problems.

You can euthanize all women in long-term coma, then you won't have these problems.

But necrophilia IS against the law ;)

But necrophilia IS against the law ;)
Cremate'em.

What about cohersed confessions?

How coerced confessions or cohersed confessions violate privacy rights?

And how is punishing the cops a reward for them?

And how is punishing the cops a reward for them?

Accepting the evidence is a reward.


Even a reward coupled with punishment is a reward.

You could argue that the nursing home was in essence an extension of a hospital. Privacy during the most intimate moments of a loved ones death (where often at that point patient is unable to give consent to anything almost by definition) is considered a sacrosanct right for most despite the fact its a public hospital, and placing a camera at everyones deathbed would be considered an invasion of privacy virtually universally.

Oh yes, that's true, but it's not my point. you have to remember, in law, you and I can both be standing in exactly the same place at exactly the same time, but I might have an expectation of privacy that you don't.

She could quite well argue that she had a right to privacy where she was, but I'm not so sure he can claim that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in her room.

But, eh, whatever, appellate court disagrees.

I guess that dpepends on the sanctions, but to discard perfectly pertinent and important evidence for a privacy violation seems like a technicism to me. I do think the cases should be ruled independently. cops must be punished indeed, but the fact that the evidence is there and it is valid and incriminating stands.

*shrug* maybe, maybe not. Depends on if you consider violation of privacy so heinous that we have to discourage it by ever possible measure, even if that means letting criminals go free.

I think it is, you may disagree. And that, in the end, is the question. Is illegally violating someone's privacy so severe and egregious an act that we have to make sure that there can be no possible benefit from it, to make it utterly pointless for those to engage in it? I think so...you might not.

Regardless, the 4th amendment is what it is.

Court Slams Wis. Cops In Coma Sex Case

"Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/national/main4441013.shtml?source=mostpop_story


Was this the correct decision?

According to the article they had a warrant. Doesn't that trump his expectation of privacy?

According to the article they had a warrant. Doesn't that trump his expectation of privacy?

depends on the basis for the warrant...I'm very confused about this.

its a very sad story and im glad that the cops cant videotape without a warrant.

Quoth the article: "Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks."

But it's a blanket regulation. This is about the privacy right. Not about warrants. Your cocaine example falls completely out of comparison. If a cop is willing to face punishment for getting evidence hard, that could or not could get a conviction, (because in the end is the jury's decision), is indeed a great show of commitment to his job by the cop.


Violating someones rights is a "great show of commitment to his job"??? What the hell are you smoking?

depends on the basis for the warrant...I'm very confused about this.

As far as can be determined from the article it seems the basis for the warrant was that the staff thought he might be raping his comatose wife. Thus they got a warrant permitting them to videotape the room and caught him doing just that.

As far as can be determined from the article it seems the basis for the warrant was that the staff thought he might be raping his comatose wife. Thus they got a warrant permitting them to videotape the room and caught him doing just that.

Now I just don't get that, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable basis for a warrant, why on earth would the court rule it illegal?

Now I just don't get that, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable basis for a warrant, why on earth would the court rule it illegal?

I'll see if I can find the ruling during lunch, see if I can't figure this out a bit.

Violating someones rights is a "great show of commitment to his job"??? What the hell are you smoking?

When you put it like that...However, it's not like they are going to get higher wages for said conviction. No idea about the sanctions, but would you be willing to spend some months or even more time in jail, or pay a large fine just to be sure that someone COULD face a conviction? I mean, the final word is still on the jury's hands. It's not like the evidence means a sure conviction, just gives the jury and judge in charge of the case additional information. For me, that would be a hell of sacrifice for getting your job done, that is supposed, in the case of an investigator, to be gather as much evidence as possible about what happened.

Interestingly enough, they had a warrant.
they must have decided that the warrant was incorrectly issued then eh? that her nursing home room was essentially "home" and not public so that the bar is set higher for when to issue a warrant.

they must have decided that the warrant was incorrectly issued then eh? that her nursing home room was essentially "home" and not public so that the bar is set higher for when to issue a warrant.

That's...not really technically correct. If something is "public" no warrant is needed at all. You only need a warrant in circumstances where a reasonable person would assume his actions are "private".

If I were a cop, I could stand next to you on the street and write down everything you say all day long, I don't need a warrant for that.

It's not like a warrant "for public" and a warrant "for private" have different standards. A warrant is only required for private "searches" (and I use the term broadly) and is never needed for public ones.

And even then there are, if memory serves, about a dozen exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Court Slams Wis. Cops In Coma Sex Case

"Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/national/main4441013.shtml?source=mostpop_story


Was this the correct decision?

Not to hijack, but I think it was comedian Jim Norton who suggested that Michael Schiavo do exactly this to go along with Terry's parents' notion that their daughter was a truly functional human being. He should have said "okay, then I'll have her do her wifely duty" and mounted her in front of them. "Oh yeah, baby, you like that, don't you?"

When I saw that the first time, I was so ashamed of myself for LAUGHING MY ASS OFF that I couldn't stop for five solid minutes. If he goes to hell for that bit, at least I'll have something to laugh at down there.

Almost funny, that case.

This is a can of worms, no matter what I do say about this, there is a problem regarding it. For the time being, I can't see how the police violating the man's right of privacy inmediately makes evidence invalid. I would make the cops pay for violating the man's privacy, imposing whatever sanctions the law establishes, and THEN I would use the tape as evidence.

Evidence obtained illegally, regardless of what that evidence is, is inadmissible. To allow the evidence could start us down a slippery slope that could allow for much more serious abuse.

But it's a blanket regulation. This is about the privacy right. Not about warrants. Your cocaine example falls completely out of comparison. If a cop is willing to face punishment for getting evidence hard, that could or not could get a conviction, (because in the end is the jury's decision), is indeed a great show of commitment to his job by the cop.

Violating privacy rights by recording someone shouldn't open the door to false evidence. Other violations could.

Regarding you, Intestinal Fluids, you went even far off the mark. Beating you violates some of your rights, but not your privacy rights. This discussion is also about privacy rights, I spoke privacy rights, not any right, so the argument still remains on topic, and you both are the ones derailing it by hyperbolic comparisons.

How about wire taps. Say the cops put an illegal wire tap on a phone, and catch them saying something about a crime that they committed or want to commit. How is that any different from an illegal search and seizure? With recording something illegally, they are functionally doing the same thing.

I question the validity of the statement that he had an expectation of privacy in her nursing home room, considering he was, at best, a visitor.

But the court found that he did, and, given that finding, the ruling was proper.

edit: actually, the article said they had a warrant, so I'm unsure where the illegality of the search comes from.

Could it be that the cops didn't really have enough evidence to get the warrant in the first place? I'm not sure how that works.

you can find anything on youtube.