NCJ Number
95003
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 20 Issue: 4 Dated: (July-August 1984) Pages: 361-371
Date Published
1984
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This discussion argues that a comprehensive judicial integrity rationale is preferable for deterring police from illegal behavior and for holding the criminal justice system true to its constitutional mission rather than an exclusionary rule based solely on deterrence.
Abstract
Included is a review of the exclusionary rule in court doctrine, an examination of the difficulties inherent in attempts to assess crime control costs versus police deterrence benefits, and an identification of systemic integrity as more than a court's 'moral purity.' The deterrence rationale collapses into judicial integrity when integrity is carefully analyzed. If the Supreme Court means what it says when it holds that deterrence is a primary reason for upholding the exclusionary rule, then the main issue is education. Deterrence means that an officer has learned not to violate the Constitution when performing his/her policing duties. A comprehensive view of integrity means that this learning occurs when all system actors interact to ensure its vitality. The judge leads in this process, but prosecutors educate officers about constitutional guarantees, and police supervisory personnel should be sensitive to court-imposed constraints. Twenty-seven footnotes are provided.