{"id":23718,"date":"2016-09-17T07:19:56","date_gmt":"2016-09-17T12:19:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23718"},"modified":"2016-09-17T07:19:56","modified_gmt":"2016-09-17T12:19:56","slug":"scotusblog-the-court-after-scalia-scalias-absence-may-help-preserve-the-exclusionary-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=23718","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUSBlog: The Court after Scalia: Scalia\u2019s absence may help preserve the exclusionary rule"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUSBlog: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2016\/09\/the-court-after-scalia-scalias-absence-may-help-preserve-the-exclusionary-rule\/\">The Court after Scalia: Scalia\u2019s absence may help preserve the exclusionary rule<\/a> by Orin Kerr:<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Justice Antonin Scalia was a strong opponent of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. When the Court heard a case about its scope, Scalia\u2019s vote was easy to predict. Scalia took the government\u2019s side every time. His votes made him part of a conservative majority that consistently chipped away at the exclusionary rule over Scalia\u2019s thirty years on the Court. Scalia\u2019s death, and the possibility that he will be replaced by a very different Justice, raises the possibility that further chipping away may now stall \u2013 and may, over time, be reversed.<\/p>\n<p>Scalia\u2019s opposition to the exclusionary rule is easy to forget today because he developed a reputation near the end of his career as a friend of criminal defendants. That reputation was only partially deserved. For most of his career, Scalia was among the Court\u2019s most government-friendly votes in criminal cases. But during his last decade on the Court, Justice Scalia became something of a \u201cswing vote\u201d in several Fourth Amendment cases.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUSBlog: The Court after Scalia: Scalia\u2019s absence may help preserve the exclusionary rule by Orin Kerr:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,83],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusionary-rule","category-scotus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23718","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23718"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23718\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23719,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23718\/revisions\/23719"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}