IS IT TIME TO ABOLISH THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE? (FROM CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 1979, BY R G IACOVETTA AND DAE H CHANG - SEE NCJ-63717)

• NCJ Number: 63738
• Author(s): J M KRESS
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 12 pages
• Corporate Author: Carolina Academic Press
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

CITING PERTINENT CASE LAW, THIS ESSAY EXAMINES THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, ITS DEVELOPMENT AND USE, ABUSES THAT CAN RESULT FROM ITS USE, LACK OF REMEDIES FOR THE INNOCENT, AND ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON.

Abstract

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRES THAT EVEN TRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE BE BARRED FROM USE AT THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IF THE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED THROUGH THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BECAME APPLICABLE TO ALL THE STATES THROUGH THE 1961 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MAPP V. OHIO. SUPPORTERS OF THE RULE ARGUE THAT IT WILL DETER IMPROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURTS, AND SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW WHEN THERE IS NO REAL ALTERNATIVE TO SUCH A RULE. OPPONENTS CONTEND THAT IT PREVENTS RELIABLE EVIDENCE FROM BEING CONSIDERED BY JURORS AND HINDERS LAW OFFICIALS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO PREVENT OR DETECT CRIME. OPPONENTS OFFER OTHER ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING VARIOUS DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, THE COMMON LAW SANCTION OF TORT DAMAGES, AND MORE. CONCLUDING THE ESSAY ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DISTINCTIONS TO BE MADE BETWEEN MALICIOUS AND MISTAKEN MISCONDUCT BY THE POLICE. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (RFC)