The purpose of this article is to evaluate the Canadian and American criminal justice systems by analyzing one facet of both systems-the exclusionary rule. More specifically, this article explores whether Canada and the United States are moving toward expanding the exclusionary rule in protecting the rights of the criminally accused or are moving toward limiting the applicability of the rule and favoring the state in prosecuting the accused. The article concludes, based on an analysis of recent case law from the high courts of both countries, that the exclusionary rule is currently on different and apparently diverging tracks. In Canada before 1982, the exclusionary rule was nonexistent. Since 1982, with the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the exclusionary rule has quickly and steadily expanded. The United States, in contrast, has been restricting the exclusionary rule for years. According to the trends seen in each country, the article predicts that Canada will continue the gradual expansion toward a more absolutist exclusionary rule that began with the enactment of the Charter in 1982, while the United States will continue to limit the use of the exclusionary rule in an attempt to give prosecutors greater power in prosecuting criminally accused individuals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 (1904).
2.
Arizona v. Evans, 115 S.Ct. 1185 (1995).
3.
Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S.Ct. 1246 (1991).
4.
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
5.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
6.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
7.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).
8.
Bradley, C.
(1993). The emerging international consensus as to criminal procedure rules. Michigan Journal of International Law, 14, 171-221.
9.
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
10.
Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy
. (1989). Report to the Attomey General on the search and seizure exclusionary rule: Truth in criminal justice report no. 2. University of Michigan Journal of Law, 22, 573-659.
11.
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).
12.
Ferdico, J.
(1993). Criminal procedurefor the criminal justice professional. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
13.
Glover, S.
(1988). Exclusion of evidence: Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from the prosecution's case-in-chief under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian-American Law Journal, 4, 57-81.
14.
Griffiths, C.
, & Verdun-Jones, S. (1994). Canadian criminaljustice. Toronto, Ontario: Butterworths.
15.
Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
16.
Harvie, R.
, & Foster, H. (1990). Ties that bind? The Supreme Court of Canada, American jurisprudence, and the revision of Canadian criminal law under the Charter. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 28, 729-788.
17.
Hogg, P.
(1984). Canada's new Charter of Rights. American Journal of Comparative Law, 32, 283-305.
18.
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984).
19.
Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987).
20.
Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990).
21.
Israel, J.
, Kamisar, Y., & LaFave, W. (1993). Criminal procedure and the Constitution: Leading Supreme Court cases and introductory text. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
22.
Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).
23.
Kuhlman v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986).
24.
Landes, R.
(1991). The Canadian polity: A Comparative introduction. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall Canada.
25.
Lipset, S.
(1990). Continental divide: Th7e values and institutions of the United States and Canada. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
26.
MacDougall, D.
(1985). The exclusionary rule and its altematives: Remedies for constitutional violations in Canada and the United States. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 608-665.
27.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
28.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803).
29.
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987).
30.
Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (1984).
31.
McKenna, M.
(1993). The Canadian & American constitutions in comparative perspective. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press.
32.
McLellan, A.
, & Elman, B. (1983). The enforcement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: An analysis of section 24. Alberta Law Review, 21, 205-250.
33.
Mickenberg, I.
(1995, July 21). Court settles on narrower view of 4th Amendment. National Law Journal, p. 8.
34.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
35.
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).
36.
Morton, F.
(1992). Law politics and the judicial process in Canada. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press.
37.
Nasheri, H.
, & DeMarco, V. (1994). True confessions?: A critique ofArizona v. Fulminante. American Journal of Criminal Law, 21, 273-290.
38.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).
39.
Oaks, D.
(1970). Studying the exclusionary rule in search and seizure. University of Chicago Law Review, 37, 665-695.
40.
O'Brien, D.
(1995). Constitutional law and politics. New York, NY: Norton.
41.
O'Donnell, F.
(1984). The thin blue line: Customs searches and the Charter of Rights. Ottawa Law Review, 16, 467-505.
42.
Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
43.
Paciocco, D.
(1990). The judicial repeal of s. 24(2) and the development of the Canadian exclusionary rule. Criminal Law Quarterly, 32, 326-365.
44.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
45.
R. v. Burlingham, [1995] file no. 23966.
46.
R. v. Caron, 3 C.R.R. 275 (Ont. Dist. Ct. 1982).
47.
R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383.
48.
R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265.
49.
R. v. Corinthian, 10 W.C.B. 9 (Ont. Prov. Ct. 1983).
50.
R. v. Dyment, [1988] 66 C.R.3d 348.
51.
R. v. Hebert, [1990] 77 C.R.3d 145.
52.
R. v. Hogan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574.
53.
R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 1 C.R.4th 62.
54.
R. v. Leclair, [1989] 67 C.R.3d 209.
55.
R. v. Manninen, [1987] 58 C.R.3d 97.
56.
R. v. Nielson, [1988] 43 C.C.C.3d 548.
57.
R. v. Poheretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945.
58.
R. v. Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3.
59.
R. v. Rothman, [1981] 12 D.L.R.3d 578.
60.
R. v. Simmons, 7 D.L.R.4th 719 (Ont. Ct. App. 1984).
61.
R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613.
62.
R. v. Wray, [1970] 11 D.L.R.3d 673.
63.
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).
64.
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
65.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
66.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
67.
Sedler, R.
(1984). Constitutional protection of individual rights in Canada: The impact and freedoms of the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Notre Dame Law Review, 59, 1191-1242.
68.
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984).
69.
Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
70.
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976).
71.
Tarnopolsky, W.
(1981). The historical and constitutional context of the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Law and Contemporary Problems, 44, 169-193.
72.
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).
73.
United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 (1980).
74.
United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980).
75.
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976).
76.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 902 (1984).
77.
United States v. Padilla, 113 S.Ct. 1936 (1993).
78.
Ward, R.
(1986). Search, seizure and the Canadian CharterofRights. Anglo-American Law Review, 15, 37-58.
