NCJ Number
25102
Journal
American Criminal Law Review Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Dated: (WINTER 1975) Pages: 507-537
Date Published
1975
Length
30 pages
Annotation
THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA (1974), WHICH FOUND THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS A MERE 'REMEDIAL DEVICE' AND THAT ITS SOLE JUSTIFICATION IS TO DETER POLICE MISCONDUCT.
Abstract
AT THE OUTSET, THIS NOTE EXAMINES THE RADICAL SHIFT IN THE SUPREME COURT'S SENSE OF THE RULE'S CONSTITUTIONAL UNDERPINNINGS. CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND THE COURT'S PRESENT PERCEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF THE RULE WILL ULTIMATELY BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE RULE'S FUTURE SHAPE, OR EVEN ITS SURVIVAL. IN THE PAST, THE SUPREME COURT HAS RELIED UPON THREE CONCEPTUALLY DISTINCT CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE - THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY, AND THE DETERRENCE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICE PRACTICES. IN 1974, IN UNITED STATES V. CALANDRA, THE SUPREME COURT VIEWED THE RULE SOLELY AS A DETERRENCE MECHANISM DESIGNED TO INSURE POLICE CONFORMANCE TO THE COMMANDS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS SHIFT IN THE COURT'S SENSE OF THE RULE'S CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS, THIS NOTE DISCUSSES THE THREE RATIONALES FORMERLY SEEN AS THE BASIS FOR THE RULE, ANALYZES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RULE AS A DETERRENT, AND EXAMINES ITS MOST PROMINENT AND PROMISING ALTERNATIVES. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT SUCH AN INQUIRY CAN SUGGEST ONLY A DIM FUTURE FOR THE CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF THE RULE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)