The testimony usually goes like this –
“Now officer, as you observed the defendant’s driving that night, did you see anything that caused you to believe he might be operating under the influence of some intoxicant?”
“I did. He was weaving all over the place, crossed the yellow line and the white lines, and almost hit another officer who happened to be nearby.”
And you know what happens next – that “testimony” is taken as the God’s honest truth and the resulting confession and/or seized contraband is coming in as evidence against the defendant. Unless, that is, there is some other evidence that proves the officer’s stop and resulting seizures were not as he or she has testified. Imagine a priest in the back seat, who can come in and testify that he was reciting the rosary at the time and the car traveled in a perfect line and the poor officer is just mistaken. Could happen. And if it does – is the evidence (confessions, seized dope, whatever) admissible?
The usual answer is that evidence seized as a result of an illegal search is excluded, and cannot be used at trial. That general rule is already...
