Unlike previous research, this study analyzed actual search warrant applications, included information on the seriousness of the violation in cases where the exclusionary rule was invoked, and focused on individual cases. The results showed that motions to suppress evidence were successful in less than one percent of the primary warrants and motions were sustained for only two percent of all defendants in the sample. Twenty-one (1.5 percent) of the defendants were allowed to go free as a result of a successful motion; the offenders in these cases were charged with possession of cocaine, obscenity, fencing small amounts of stolen property, and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The findings indicate that the exclusionary rule, while not frequently invoked, serves as an incentive for police officers to heed fourth amendment limitations related to search and seizure. Officers in several jurisdictions had their warrants reviewed by prosecutors in order to ensure they met standards of probable cause. The authors conclude that the cost of the exclusionary rule in lost cases is minimal, that few criminals are freed as a result of successful motions to suppress evidence, and that criminals who are freed are those who have committed less serious offenses. 9 tables and 93 notes
Downloads
Related Datasets
Similar Publications
- Just Science Podcast: Just Digital Evidence in the Courts of Appeals
- Fingerprint Identification: The Role of Research in Fortifying the Forensic Sciences - Expert Chat Webinar, NIJ and Harvard's Government Innovators Network
- Statistical Validation on the Individuality of Tool Marks Due to the Effect of Wear, Environment Exposure and Partial Evidence