NCJ Number
26019
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 66 Issue: 2 Dated: (JUNE 1975) Pages: 135-149
Date Published
1975
Length
15 pages
Annotation
DISCUSSION OF EXCLUSION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING OF EVIDENCE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, GIVING PARTICULAR EMPHASIS TO STATE PRACTICES.
Abstract
THIS COMMENT SURVEYS HOW MANY COURTS AND LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE TREATED THE ISSUE OF WHETHER EVIDENCE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AT PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. IN SOME STATES, THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE TO ALLOW EXCLUSION ON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED OR PROPER OBJECTION, CONTRARY TO PRESENT FEDERAL PRACTICE AND THE APPARENT PRACTICE IN MANY OTHER STATES. REVIEWING THE INTERESTS SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING EXCLUSION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING OF EVIDENCE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT NEITHER EXCLUSION NOR ADMISSION CAN OR SHOULD BE URGED AS A UNIFORM NATIONAL STANDARD; AND THAT PERHAPS THE BEST APPROACH AT PRESENT IS FOR THE STATES TO DEVELOP THOSE SOLUTIONS TO PRETRIAL EXCLUSION PROBLEMS THAT LOCAL EXPERIENCE FINDS MOST APPROPRIATE, SINCE A UNIFORM STANDARD FOR THE STATES CANNOT YET CONFIDENTLY BE PROPOSED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)