There are more types of consequences than just penal ones. For example, I imagine if they are indeed banned, and a case against a defendant is built around the usage of the technology, then that case would get dropped. That is a consequence in of itself as it wasted valuable prosecutorial resources, department resources, etc.

Unfortunately, you have situations where cases are started using inadmissible investigation tactics, but presented to a jury without them.

In those situations, the prosecution may succeed, which actually adds incentive to conduct the illegal investigations.

Do individuals care about wasted taxpayer’s resources? They’re getting paid to do their job, regardless of dropped case or not. The defendant spends their time and money and has to live a stressful life.

It is obvious that waste of public resources is not an effective deterrent of police lawlessness.

Police leaders should go to prison if they willfully violate the law.

Money drives everything AFAIK. So if laws existed that allowed a state to withhold budget to a county that had cops not following rules, then the county would take interest. If the counties could withhold funding from cities that had bad cops, the mayors would take interest. Or perhaps the laws could permit budget reallocation. I doubt any such laws would ever get passed, but in theory this could help keep people focused.

Another challenge is sunk cost. San Diego for example has LED street lights that are also cameras and microphones, being used for machine learning. Would they ever rip those out if they were deemed illegal? Or would they just pause the collection and wait for people to forget? [1]

[1] - https://www.govtech.com/smart-cities/Smart-Streetlight-Data-...

Cities don't have much ability to handle bad cops though. The police unions are too powerful

Very true, good point.

Police are largely protected from criminal prosecution because they know exactly how cruel and inhumane the criminal justice system is.

If they are indicted they often have special rules for how and when they will be arrested / interrogated through union contracts. A way to solve this is legislation at the local level that a) makes some of these specific unequal rules illegal, but also b) fixes the inhumane parts of the justice system for everyone.

Police in the US don't enforce the laws against other police or other powerful figures in governments, for the most part. This results in two different sets of laws, one that applies to police and government officials, and a much broader set that applies to you and I.

The idea that the law is applied equally is a total fiction.

I think the more practical consequence is to fine and place injunctions on the software providers. They have the most to lose for violating compliance.