WITH OUR LIBERTY AT STAKE, EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE GATHERED BY SHORTCUT

IT IS not surprising that the state Supreme Judicial Court's decision
in Commonwealth v. Cruz dismays police and prosecutors ("SJC limits
response by police to marijuana," Page A1, April 20). That is probably
because the decision will make it more difficult for them to search
for evidence in violation of Article 14 of the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights.

The only practical way to safeguard against unreasonable search and
seizure is to make improperly gathered evidence inadmissible at trial.
It is what is known as a prophylactic rule.

Knowing that such evidence is likely to be suppressed diminishes the
incentive for law-enforcement officers to improperly gather it in the
first place.

When someone's liberty is at stake, it very well should be difficult
for the state to make its case without the benefit of shortcuts. The
SJC made the right decision in Cruz.

Peter J. Cotch

Andover

The writer is a probate lawyer.