How could you live in the world without breaking the law if you didn't know what the law was?

What baffles me is the hypocrisy in the political party that wants more government and regulation is the same one that hates the men who enforce it.

Yet plea bargaining is basically a promise in exchange for a confession (guilty plea), and that's why it's not allowed basically anywhere except the US.

This isn't good advice only for people who have possibly committed a crime but also (and especially) for those who are confident that they have not. The police are asking you questions to "get to the bottom of it" and they encounter people every day who do think they can lie to get out of a crime; they think you might try to lie to get out of a crime. They won't trust your words but they will verify your words. If your words turn out to be false, then they'll tell the judge/jury that you lied to them, not that you were mistaken; in the absence of stronger evidence (against someone else) they might claim you were possibly even intending to direct their investigation toward a red herring with your falsehoods.

The only revision to this advice I've heard in the past decade-and-a-bit: tell the police your real first and last name if they ask. It's not always a requirement but some states have "stop and ID" laws, which means you have to identify yourself to law enforcement during a "lawful detention" (other states instead require it after an arrest).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

My interview tapes are hilarious.

I fear like many other old assumptions about criminal justice that isn't a close match to reality.

Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad".

Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp

Because there is nothing prohibiting it.

That is not the fault of the police, and there is no reason to punish them for it.

Also note that there are good-faith defenses to all sorts of crimes, because (for example) there is a difference between knowingly defrauding a customer and just making a mistake.

So this isn’t really a good argument even if we ignore the fact that it’s a non sequitur.

A better argument is that the good faith exception, while making sense in principle, can easily be abused by the police to make illegally obtained evidence look like it was done in good faith, and therefore the exception itself should be removed because of how difficult it is to actually gauge and enforce.

How often does this actually happen in criminal matters?

The legal precedent for this goes back decades, and it's been argued by many people better-informed than you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good-faith_exception

Their police force is 15 for a community of 41 homes[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Creek,_Florida [2] https://www.indiancreekvillagefl.gov/police/police-staff-dir...

Maybe their paychecks don't come from the federal government nominally but in practice it's highly intermixed.

The defendants rights were violated, but there is no doubt about the legitimacy of the data, and what it implies. Police now know they cannot use this method in the future, so suppressing the evidence in this particular case does not disincentivize anything, as long as its made clear that it cannot be done in the future.

And people wonder why American's are apathetic to it all. A judge can just wave away constitutional violations all day/every day because 'good faith'.

Yes, next time they do it the data cannot be used in court as it was already declared anti-constitutional by that Circuit and good faith argument cannot be used. Good faith and not knowing the law are different; good faith can be used when the law is not clear enough and there was no rule to clarify.

It happens very often with 2A restrictions that are overturned by courts, but they are in effect for years and when they are repelled by courts then similar laws are passed just to be repelled years later, but during all the years there is an anti-constitutional law in place with prohibitions. So police cannot do cell searches, but local governments can enact anti-constitutional laws with intention and wipe rights successfully, for example laws that mandates telecom companies to provide the data to the police.