this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
430 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
80859 readers
3638 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whatever they find is inadmissible, if there truly wasn't a warrant.
Doesn't mean they can't use it for parallel construction
Does Dutch/EU law have that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
It's not a law but a practice that cops do in order to use dubiously acquired evidence to build a case against someone.
Yes but that doesn't answer the question of whether it's an accepted practice in the EU. I'm also not so sure it isn't somehow codified into law, in the US there's precedents supporting it but IDK about other countries.
The point is that it skirts the law. You can't really make it illegal because it is a way of subverting legality. If they legally obtain the evidence then it's legally obtained. If they happened to get to that point through extra-legal means that doesn't really matter, as long as the end result is legal. Maybe you could argue in court that they only got there because of extra-legal actions, but they can argue the opposite. If this helps them look in the right spot for illegal actions, who's to say that them looking there couldn't have happened purely by chance?
It basically means dodging legal restrictions on investigation by using illegal (or at least inadmissible) means to obtain evidence, and once the police have it, they look for legal ways to get that same information.
So everywhere "has it", the question is whether they use it. I don't know if there's reason to believe that EU police forces use such methods more or less than their US counterparts.
I know what it is, but that doesn't mean it's an accepted practice in the EU. I don;t really know much about how their law works, which is why I asked about it.
this isn't in US
https://repository.tilburguniversity.edu/bitstreams/97187bcf-4ad2-402c-ac05-e565346d09b6/download
EU has similar laws and Dutch law allows for striking illegally collected evidence if the infringement was severe
The EU doesn’t have laws. It has directives and regulation. These are converted into law by member states.
The EU doesn’t have any regulation or directives about the inadmissibility of evidence; that is a national concern. The only area the EU has directives for regarding evidence is the cross-border admissibility of evidence from one country being accepted in another.
This is in line with the principle of subsidiarity, which means the EU only concerns itself with trans-European issues.
This is technically correct, the best kind of correct.
EU Regulations are directly applicable to all member states, so its not needed to transpose those into domestic law for them to be used. Some countries' constitutional setup mess with this(like the uk eh pre-brexit I guess), but in general regulations are as important if not more than domestic law.
Directives can be directly used in domestic courts but only under certain conditions. The defendant/respondant needs to be a public body and the transposition deadline must have passed. Its basicly 'you failed to implement it in time — tough'. Also if they're not implemented correctly. But in general yes, they're only instructions for the members to pass domestic legislation.
I think even on a technicality both are law. Sorry if this was a bit padantic.
oh and yes I'm not aware of any EU legislation on admissibility of evidence. But, not really my area :/ I think there have been proposals for cross-border stuff but can't remember what became of that. If you know any in force i'd be interested in reading that? thanks
Conspiracy brain says this was deliberately done to make any evidence inadmissible and key evidence gathered without a warrant would result in an acquittal with an unlikely second trial for fear of double jeopardy.
Laws exist outside of that country.
The same goes for NL.