NCJ Number
84544
Date Published
1979
Length
33 pages
Annotation
An analysis of 2,804 cases handled in 38 U.S. attorneys' offices from July 1 - August 31, 1978, indicates that the application of the exclusionary rule did not have a significant impact on the disposition of those cases.
Abstract
Sixteen percent of the defendants whose cases were accepted for prosecution filed some type of suppression motion, with 11 percent of the defendants whose cases were accepted for prosecution filing fourth amendment suppression motions under the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the introduction of evidence seized illegally. Only .4 of declined defendants' cases were declined because of fourth amendment search and seizure problems. Thirty-three percent of the defendants who went to trial filed fourth amendment suppression motions, and most had formal hearings on their motions; however, the overwhelming majority of these motions were denied. Although the filing of fourth amendment suppression motions, even those not formally heard in court, requires the expenditure of criminal justice resources, the resources expended were found to be modest when compared with total resource use. When fourth amendment motions were granted in total or in part, this did appear to reduce the likelihood of conviction. Appended are the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule, results of the analysis of the impact of the exclusionary rule on criminal prosecutions, the review methodology, the letter from Sen. Edward Kennedy requesting the study, the screener's log questionnaire, and the fourth amendment motion questionnaire.