I agree that sometimes technicalities cause injustice. That's why I advocated reevaluation of laws and the specifics of certain rights as appropriate. I think there are certainly some extenuating circumstances--which should be clearly defined, and probably related to probable cause--in which some evidence which is excluded by current law should be reexamined.

The problem with making the blanket statement that "all evidence should always be admitted" is that it is about the biggest slippery slope ever for law-enforcement violating any and all rights that personnel feel like. And many of them are of personalities who have an unhealthy psychological need to exert power over others.

In a tyrannical state where raw milk is illegal (etc etc etc), allowing any and all evidence of law breaking into court regardless of whether it was obtained legally is more than a little bit problematic. Repeal of all legal evidentiary requirements would be far worse than all of the terrorism this country has ever suffered from.