Semantics?

[Echo_Four]

The technicality is that a criminal escaped punishment due to administrative type law. Yes, it is a violation to search a car without PC or consent. That doesn't make the driver any less guilty of murder when a headless body is found in the trunk. They are not guilty due to a technicality- the evidence isn't permissible in court. That isn't a way of addressing how the evidence was found, it is a way of explaining why the person that should be sitting in prison is not.

There are plenty of ways for you to bash cops. You don't have to defend the guilty in order to score points, there's plenty of other places to poke at. A person that isn't punished when they are guilty due to the protection of their rights is a part of our legal system, and it is necessary in order to protect the rights of people. However that doesn't mean we have to like the fact that criminals are running free due to the mistake or poor judgement of an officer.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

As long a it doesn't violate a law passed by Congress...

And when it does there are armies of litigants with special interests in the regulation ready to pounce.

Seriously, all those infamous "K -Street" lobbyists and law firms spend enormous amounts of time going through The Federal Register each week. (That where proposed rules must be published, the public given an opportunity to comment, and the
final rules are published.)

If these lobbyists and specialty law firms see something that gets past the rule making process but which is appears
inconsistent with law or constitution, they will pounce.

Now most of us mere mortals don't have the time to fine tooth comb The Federal Register, the inclination to submit a comment,
or the energy and desire to follow through and find the final published rule; but there are plenty of law firms and lobby groups
that do little more than that, to protect their interests.