The values underpinning the constitutional and other legal
exclusionary rules on evidence was to prevent such unconstitutionality by using unlawful and fraudulent private anti-corruptionpreneurs like the CEO of the dummy Tiger Eye or its other illegal variant.
Not exact matches
Some libertarians may find this too risky (libertarians generally favor the
exclusionary rule and the fourth amendment), but this argument puts the onus
on leftists to explain their support for a
rule that contributes to gun violence.
But, if your client is effectively «deputized» or becomes a «de facto» agent of the state who is called up to be a member of a posse for the police, for example, by using an agreed symbol such as shining a light with a symbol
on it
on some clouds, at that point, with respect to that matter, the 4th Amendment
exclusionary rule and Miranda probably do apply to evidence that your client obtains, and exclusion of that kind of evidence could make prosecution much more difficult, unless the prosecution can successfully make an argument that the other evidence that the illegally obtained evidence leads them to is not «fruit of the poisonous tree» because it would have inevitably been discovered in due course using only the legally obtained evidence.
The distinction of taking notice
on their own accord as opposed to by the parties has more to do with
exclusionary rules of hearsay than the ability of the court to do so.
The substantial social costs exacted by the
exclusionary rule for the vindication of Fourth Amendment rights have long been a source of concern... We have now reexamined the purposes of the
exclusionary rule and the propriety of its application in cases where officers have relied
on a subsequently invalidated search warrant.
Not only will the application of the
exclusionary rule depend
on a wide range of considerations, other
rules of evidence may need to be applied (such as the
rules against character evidence and extrinsic evidence
on a collateral matter).