NCJ Number
126887
Journal
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume: 45 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1988) Pages: 1499-1526
Date Published
1988
Length
28 pages
Annotation
Recent Federal court decisions that allow Federal prosecutors to use evidence that State officers obtained in violation of a State constitution not only ignore historic concepts of Federalism and constitutional law, but are grounded on inadequate reasoning.
Abstract
Examples of these decisions are the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Pforzheimer and the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Chavez-Vernaza. The Federal courts that have made these decisions are thus encroaching on State sovereignty by negating states' historic ability to protect their citizens' individual liberties independently. Moreover, these courts also contravene the main purpose behind the states' adoption of the Federal Bill of Rights: to protect State citizens from the Federal government. Finally, these courts encourage forum shopping and sanction a doctrine that the United States Supreme Court has consistently attempted to eradicate. These courts should recognize the role of the exclusionary rule in deterring official lawlessness and that State constitutions and exclusionary rules predate and are historically more forceful than the Federal exclusionary rule. 163 footnotes