I hear this arguement a lot. And while I agree with it, I also disagree with it.
Let's say I know several drug dealers. In order for them to not be caught, they all hop in cars and drive around mobile. Someone comes to me and says they are looking for pot. I check my GPS tracker and tell them where to find the drug dealer. Next guy asks for coke, so I check the GPS tracker on the coke dealer, and arrange another meeting.
While I am not selling anything, I highly doubt someone who participated in this type of racket would not be charged with anything. The current geek mentality is very much all or nothing. I.E. "If this is illegal, then so is selling maps to the star's homes". People need to realize that lines are drawn and there are limits. Life, and the law, are not all or nothing propositions.
Just as the police can "accidentally" serve a warrant to the wrong person and find evidence to charge this person with a crime. Since the warrant was issued "in good faith", it can then be upheld in court.
Under this new legislation, I can already see the number of "we thought we destroyed the DNA, but evidentially we forgot." Since it is in "good faith" that the police destroy DNA, I assume that old DNA will be able to be used as evidence?
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood