NCJ Number
79234
Journal
Criminal Justice Journal-Western State University, San Diego Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1980) Pages: 303-321
Date Published
1980
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article deals with the development, of the exclusionary rule, both on the Federal and State level; the practicality of this rule; and suggested alternatives and their feasibility.
Abstract
The exclusionary rule provides that any evidence obtained in a manner which violates a person's constitutionally protected rights cannot be used against the defendant in a criminal trial. Early common law in the United States did not have the exclusionary rule. The admissibility of evidence was not affected by the means by which it was obtained. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court formally adopted the exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States. However, until 1961, the rule only applied to conduct by Federal agents. In 1961, the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio extended the rule to State actions via the due process clause of the 14th amendment. More recently, it appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to limit its application of the exclusionary rule, as shown by its decisions permitting statements made in violation of a party's rights under Miranda to be admitted for impeachment purposes, expanding the concept of what is a reasonable search incident to a lawful arrest, permitting the use of illegally seized evidence in grand jury proceedings, and limiting the persons who have the standing to raise the issue of an unlawful search. The article notes that the California Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court. Criticisms of the rule are discussed and alternatives are delineated, including criminal sanctions for the offending officer, modification of the rule to provide for flexibility proportionate to the degree of unlawful conduct by the police officer, and compensation of the 'victim' as a deterrent. The article suggests that preventive measures should be taken to guard against inadvertent or careless intrusions into a suspect's right to privacy by law enforcement personnel. In addition, legal counsel should be available to the police in the field via radio contact on a 24-hour basis. A total of 70 footnotes are included.