Cheese photo leads to Liverpool drug dealer's downfall

As others have pointed out - that's not the constitution.

From a philosophical perspective, though, I agree that Jefferson and others saw those rights as fundamental human truths. They were saying "people already have these rights, we promise the government won't infringe on them", not "the government grants people these privileges". (Of course, who qualified as "people" continued to be a matter of debate. And some of the "fundamental" rights later enumerated in the bill of rights, specifically the third, seem like pretty localized of-their-place-and-time concerns in retrospect.)

I think what prompted my comment and some of the other replies to pc86 was that the beginning of this comment thread was discussing some fairly specific applied legal concepts (e.g. "parallel construction") from a practical perspective of applied law. So replying to that thread with a point about political philosophy from an entirely different country is a bit of an odd tangent. Re-reading the comment, I do think that's how it was intended, but I think the context made it easy to misinterpret it as suggesting that Americans believe everyone in the world should abide by our political philosophy. Which is certainly regrettably true of some Americans, but I hope it doesn't describe anywhere close to most of us.

I don’t get it. I’m mostly very skeptical of the claim of making a positive fingerprint ID through a picture. Has anyone ever heard of this before? Fingerprints are known to be very unreliable and subjective. I’m not convinced this is actually what happened, and not just a cute story pushed by the British law enforcement.

Edit: I did find a couple articles talking about technique of lifting prints from photographs, so I guess it’s a thing? Enough confidence for them to track him down, and win a guilty plea.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree assumes that the real way they identified the target was through illegal means."

But bear in mind that typically we read "illegal means" as some sort of deliberate violation of the law, whereas in the US it's more like there's a relatively carefully defined set of "legal means". There are a number of sources of inadmissible evidence that a common, normal person would probably consider perfectly moral to introduce as trial evidence, but is denied in the US. (At least, officially. Of course things can be cheated. I'm talking about the nominal system here, not the real one.) "Illegal means" means less in this context than it might normally.

As an American happy to live in a country with all our protected freedoms, there are some parts of the Constitution that other reasonable countries don't agree with, and that's fine. There are other cultures with other value systems and they're no less valid.

(1) Freedom of Assembly, part of our 1st Amendment, is one example.

A French court recently decided a protest in Paris could not take place. The court rationale was that a previous protest a few years ago in the same area on the same issue led to violence and destruction of property.

The French Constitution allows freedom of speech, but not freedom of assembly, and Americans are often confused by that. The freedom to write and say what you want does not equate to the freedom to protest in the streets. Not allowing freedom of assembly would have saved many lives in the protests that have swept the US, though potentially at the cost of slower social progress.

(2) Right to bear arms, our 2nd amendment, is another example.

The vast majority of first-world countries don't agree that the right to bear arms is an inalienable human right in today's society.

As Americans, we may prefer the added protection against government tyranny and our personal ability to protect ourselves and our belongings. Unarguably, however, it comes at the cost of mass shootings, and additionally, though many factors are responsible for our uniquely high homicide rate, easy availability of firearms certainly does not help to curb it.

--- All this to say, many of our protected rights have clear, substantial disadvantages. It's not our place to tell every other country in the world how to operate.