{"id":2274,"date":"2008-07-19T17:03:11","date_gmt":"2008-07-19T08:18:38","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-19T08:18:38","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2274","title":{"rendered":"NY Times article on demise of exclusionary rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

The NY Times has an article today on the exclusionary rule, by Adam Liptak, U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err<\/a>. Is Mr. Liptak forecasting Hudson<\/em><\/a> fanning out throughout Fourth Amendment jurisprudence?<\/p>\n

The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence.<\/p>\n

\u201cForeign countries have flatly rejected our approach,\u201d said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. \u201cIn every other country, it\u2019s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

But there are signs that some justices on the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the American version of the exclusionary rule. Writing for the majority two years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia said that at least some unconstitutional conduct ought not require \u201cresort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court will soon have an opportunity to clarify matters. The justices will hear arguments on Oct. 7 about whether methamphetamines and a gun belonging to Bennie Dean Herring, of Brundidge, Ala., should be suppressed because the officers who conducted the search mistakenly believed he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant as a result of careless record-keeping by another police department.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One must take issue with his comment about automatically excluding the evidence. Hardly. U.S. courts already find every way they can to avoid excluding the evidence, and flagrance of the violation factors in already.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}