NCJ Number
82916
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 18 Issue: 3 Dated: (May/June 1982) Pages: 260-264
Date Published
1982
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article reviews criticisms of the exclusionary rule on admissibility of illegally seized evidence in criminal trials and discusses the Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime's recommendations to adopt a 'good faith' exception to this rule.
Abstract
Both police and prosecutors often criticize the current exclusionary rule as an impediment to law enforcement, while others have contended that it encourages perjury by police to make illegal searches appear to conform with the rule. As an alternative, the Task Force proposed that evidence determined by trial courts to have been seized illegally by officers acting in good faith would be admissible. This approach would not only encourage additional police perjury, but place a challenging new burden on the courts to distinguish blunders from willful violations. It could also discourage search and seizure training for police on the grounds that the courts find police mistakes acceptable. The 'good faith' alternative is not viable because it relies so heavily on police officers' testimony and assumes that officers who have responded to pressures to arrest and convict would risk disciplinary action by testifying to their own violations. A 1962 study of the Mapp case's impact after 1 year found an apparent increase in improbable testimony. Adoption of the 'good faith' rule would produce a new variety of improbable testimony and further damage the justice system. The article includes 17 footnotes.