This is the second in a series of posts on the finger incident. (See the prior post here). This (brief) post will focus on the evidence issues.
The question that comes up is: “what are my rights to hold on to evidence, when that act (i.e., the retention of evidence) will harm another?”
At the outset, it’s clear that some sorts of seizures of evidence are permissible, even though they have a negative effect on a party. Thus, we may want to permit the government to seize assets or computers that were used in a suspected conspiracy, even if those may also be needed for the business to run. This power has limits, of course.
An interesting analogy might be if a diabetic used her insulin-shot needles to commit a crime. At that point, the needles are both important evidence, and also something that she needs for her own health.
I don’t know how the evidentiary issues might resolve in the finger case. It’s not really my area, but I thought it would be helpful to at least suggest some of the issues here, before moving on to areas that I’m more knowledgeable with (such as tort law). I’m sure that I’m missing things here — perhaps others can suggest ways that these kinds of issues are generally resolved.
Posted by Kaimi Wenger on May 9, 2005 at 02:37 PM