What utter nonsense on behalf of the courts. The "good faith" defense is irrelevant to the finding that a fundamental right was violated, and to deny the original defendant relief like this is just absurd.
It's more complicated than that. All they really did was suspend the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.
The evidence gathered by the now ruled unconstitutional methods is not allowed to be used but the evidence gathered afterwards is still admissable where it normally would not be.
In this case, they can't use the geofence data of their locations as evidence but, after they used that to identify suspects, they can use all evidence gathered afterwards where that would normally not be allowed.
Exactly. The fundamental assumption of the Bill of Rights is that governments do not operate in good faith. If they did, there would be no need to spell out how the government is not allowed to abuse you.
This is a way for the courts not to get bad press. For the defendant at the time this is a terrible ending. For everyone else it's still nice. From a court's perspective this is a good compromise.
No it isn't. This is one of those cases where by tweaking things as such the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted to keep the Executive in line. Again.
The Courts are coming out of this looking even worse than they have been.
If this was about discrimination of race, as a rights violation, it is clear that good faith is irrelevant. Rights supercede good faith and the presumption or previous decisions are improper.
