In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court approved a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in cases where a warrant was wrongfully issued, but the Court has declined to extend it to warrantless cases. Because the majority of searches fall under exceptions to the warrant clause and thus are conducted without warrants, providing a good faith defense to constitutional challenges in these caseswould in effectrepeal the exclusionary rule. Such legislation has been proposed in Congress, but it is unlikely to pass. Even if it did pass, however, it would not change police accountability to the Fourth Amendmentmuch, because the exclusionary rule probably only minimally deters police misconduct, a matter that is difficult to explore empirically. Furthermore, the proposed legislation would apply only to federal and not state law enforcement-with exceptions for the federal police agencies that the bill's sponsors do not like. Despite the fact that the effect of this law would be minimal if it were passed, such legislation will continue to be proposed because the exclusionary rule is a condensation symbol for law and order ideologues who oppose it as a means of symbolically marking their political territory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ABA Special Committee on Criminal Justice in a Free Society
. (1988). Criminaljustice in crisis. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
2.
Bennett, F. G.
(1973). Judicial integrity and judicial review: An argument for expanding the scope of the exclusionary rule. UCLA Law Review, 20, 1129-1164.
3.
Brennan, W. J.
(1986). The Bill of Rights and the states: The revival of state constitutions as guardians of individual rights. New York University Law Review, 61, 535-553.
4.
Brosi, K.
(1979). A cross city comparison offelony case processing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
5.
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.
(1994). Standards for law enforcement agencies (3rd ed.). Fairfax, VA: Author (available from CALEA at 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 320, Fairfax, VA 22030-2201).
6.
Comptroller General of the United States
. (1979). Impact of the exclusionary rule on federal prosecutions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7.
Davies, T.
(1974). Critique: On the limits of empirical evaluation of the exclusionary rule. Northwestern University Law Review, 69, 740-798.
8.
Davies, T.
(1983). A hard look at what we know (and still need to learn) about the "costs" of the exclusionary rule: The NIJ study and other studies of "lost" arrests. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1983, 611-690.
9.
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
10.
Edelman, M.
(1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
11.
The exclusionary rule bills: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary(on S. 101, S. 751, and S. 1995), 97th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess. (1988).
12.
Forst, B.
, Lucianovic, J., & Cox, S. (1978). What happens after arrest: A court perspective of police operations in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
13.
Fyfe, J. J.
(1983). The NIJ study of the exclusionary rule. Criminal Law Bulletin, 19, 253-260.
14.
Grodin, J. R.
(1989). In pursuit of justice: Reflections of a state supreme court justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15.
Gusfield, J. R.
(1986). Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
16.
H. Res. 1390, 1393, and 1398, Cong. Rec. 141 (1995).
17.
Kamisar, Y.
(1983). Does (did) (should) the exclusionary rule rest on a "principled basis" rather than an "empirical proposition"?Creighton Law Review, 16, 565-667.
18.
Lavin, M.
, Laurence, P. A., & Stanley, D. (1984). The impact of the exclusionary rule upon the Montana criminal justice system. Helena, MT: Montana Board of Crime Control.
19.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
20.
McCoy, C.
(1984). Systemic integrity: Back to basics in the exclusionary rule debate. Criminal Law Bulletin, 20, 361-371.
21.
McCoy, C.
(1996). Crime as a boogeyman: Why Californians changed their constitution to include a "victims' bill of rights" (and what it really did). In A. Tarr (Ed.), Constitutional politics in the states (pp. 128-146). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
22.
Oaks, D.
(1970). Studying the exclusionary rule in search and seizure. University of Chicago Law Review, 37, 665-757.
23.
Office of Research Programs
. (1982). 7he effects of the exclusionary rule: A study in California. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
24.
Orfield, M. W., Jr.
(1989). The exclusionary rule and deterrence: An empirical study of Chicago narcotics officers. University of Chicago Law Review, 54, 1016-1069.
25.
Spiotto, J.
(1973). Search and seizure: An empirical study of the exclusionary rule and its alternatives. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 243-278.
26.
Sunderland, L. V.
(1980). Liberals, conservatives, and the exclusionary rule. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71, 343-377.
27.
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
28.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
. (1983). Operation of the exclusionary rule: Oversight hearings, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (June and December 1992). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
. (1986). To modify the exclusionary rule: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 99th Cong., Ist Sess. (regarding S. 237, a bill to amend Title 18, October 2, 1985). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
30.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary
. (1995). Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995: Report together with dissenting views. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
31.
United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).
32.
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984).
33.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy
. (1988). Report to the Attorney General on the search and seizure exclusionary rule (Report No. 2 in the Truth in Criminal Justice series). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
34.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).
35.
Weisberg, R.
(1985). Criminal procedure doctrine: Some versions of the skeptical. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 832-855.
