Like freedom of speech, the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree principle matters most for cases and situations that look bad.
The only effective counter to the talk radio blow-hard shouting "he got off on a technicality again!!!" is to educate the public. Otherwise, we have just abandoned the principle that a defendant needs to be not just guilty but justly proven guilty to be punished.
Actually the people pushing the he got off on a technicality will be police sycophants, talk radio tends to drive for ratings but quite a few hosts across the country are not blind friends of the police, far from it. Warrant less searches are never looked upon favorably, let alone no knock warrants, and finally the war on drugs isn't the most supported topic.
what you do have though is a very organized group out there whose job is to support the actions of the police regardless of how distasteful some may fine it, they will vilify the victim and perpetrators of crime to distract from abuses of police power. This of course leads to political pressure and chest thumping from hard on crime (at any cost) candidates.
> Actually the people pushing the he got off on a technicality will be police sycophants, talk radio tends to drive for ratings but quite a few hosts across the country are not blind friends of the police, far from it. Warrant less searches are never looked upon favorably, let alone no knock warrants, and finally the war on drugs isn't the most supported topic.
I think these statements are out of touch with the viewpoints of the majority of the voting public, at least as it has been over the last couple of decades, although it's certainly trending in a different direction these days.
Let's take 2000 as a reference point, which isn't that long ago and is a pretty good time-frame to look at, accounting from the lag in public opinion to when those viewpoints are reflected in the legal system: http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-pol....
In 2001, 90% of the U.S. thought that drug abuse was either a "crisis" (27%) or a "serious problem" (63%). 45% of the country viewed the move away from mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes as a bad thing. 63% thought that even marijuana should be illegal. Note that these are polls of the overall public: actual voters skew older and more conservative. And these are about drug use generally. Taking out marijuana, which most people view as less serious, but isn't a major target of the drug war anyway, would show even greater public support.
Now, things are slowly trending in the other direction, but it's flatly incorrect to say that only police sycophants will view criminals "getting off on a technicality" as being a bigger problem than 4th amendment violations. Even today, 26% of those polled, and almost certainly a higher percentage of voters, think the government should focus more on prosecuting drug users. Not just dealers, but users! 32%, and again likely a higher percentage of actual voters, still see the move away from mandatory minimums for non-violent drug crimes as a bad thing.
Moreover, it's crucial to distinguish between growing support for marijuana legalization, and opposition to the drug war generally. Many people have a skewed perception that the drug war is about putting marijuana users in jail. Less than 1% of people jailed for a drug offense are there solely for marijuana possession (and many of those people pled down from more serious charges): http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2011/06/facts-o.... The vast majority of drug enforcement activity is directed at harder drugs. Because most people draw a major distinction between marijuana and "real drugs" it's misleading to say that widespread support for marijuana legalization indicates a major opposition to the drug war generally.
All you have to do is watch a modern police procedural to evaluate the validity of statements like "warrant less searches are never looked upon favorably." Watch through the first (and only) season of Almost Human. The whole show is a parade of 4th amendment violations, justified by the premise "but he's the bad guy!" Media companies don't put out shows that challenge or disturb the typical person's views about things. The fact that almost every police procedural portrays the 4th amendment as just something that just protects bad guys and allows them to get off on technicalities reflects the general sentiment of the public.
That is, of course, not to justify chipping away at the 4th, but rather to point out why it's so hard to defend. The 4th amendment almost never comes up in a context in which the police did a warrantless search and didn't find anything incriminating. It almost always comes up when the police found a huge stash of cocaine, or a cache of child porn, or boxes of illegal guns.
'In 2001, 90% of the U.S. thought that drug abuse was either a "crisis" (27%) or a "serious problem" (63%).'
Strictly speaking, one can believe that and (consistently) believe the drug war is an inappropriate response. Doubly so, since "abuse" was specified - surely some of those polled would consider any use "abuse" but equally surely not all. I don't know that such a view was common enough to change your conclusions, but it more or less approximates my own views at the time.
Not the only counter, just one of them. Another effective counter is to point out that, since the public airwaves are public property and a limited resource, organizations can't be allowed to buy up the whole spectrum and fill the air with bullshit as they please.
The fairness doctrine is being pushed solely by those that want to muzzle free speech. They had no problems when the only source of news was the left wing 'mainstream' media and newspapers. But now that the news isn't being controlled by the liberal elite they cry foul.
Bullshit. And the fairness doctrine doesn't apply to e.g. newspapers, internet, cable television, or any other media that doesn't have a technical restriction that limits the number of participants in the given medium.
The fairness doctrine applies to e.g. open airwaves, and is about recognizing that when the government sells frequency spectrum to the highest bidder, it has a responsibility to regulate the artificial monopoly it just created.
"Thereby helping, in some small way, to (further?) turn the public against the doctrine of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree."