The exclusionary rule has been the focus of controversy since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Mapp v. Ohio. Over the years the Supreme Court has narrowed both the scope and the applicability of the exclusionary rule in an effort to find an acceptable balance between the deterrence of police misconduct and needs of the law enforcement. However, examination of recent decisions reveals that controversy over the exclusionary rule has not abated. Thus, while the exclusionary has not been abandoned, the future contours of the rule remain uncertain.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, F.1961Federalism and the fourth amendment: A requiem for Wolf. Supreme Court Review, 1961: 1-48.
2.
Burger, W.E.1964Who will watch the watchmen? American University Law Review14: 1-23.
3.
Canon, B.C.1982Ideology and reality in the debate over the exclusionary rule: A conservative arument for its retention. South Texas Law Review23: 559-582.
4.
Critique1974On the limitations of empirical evaluations of the exclusionary rule: A critique of the Spiotto Research and United States v. Calandra. Northwestern University Law Review69: 740-798.
5.
Davies, T.Y.1983A 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.
6.
Dellinger, W.E.1972Of rights and remedies: The constitution as a sword . Harvard Law Review85: 1532-1564.
7.
Dworkin, R.B.1973Fact style adjudication and the fourth amendment: The limits of lawyering. Indiana Law Journal48: 329-368.
8.
Kamisar, Y.1983Does (did) (should) the exclusionary rule rest on a "principled basis" rather than an "empirical proposition." Creighton Law Review16: 565-667.
9.
Keating, R.1984The D.A.'s war on technicalities: Rethinking the rules for when cops blunder. New York 30: 38-44.
10.
LaFave, W.R.1982The fourth amendment in an imperfect world: On drawing "bright lines" and "good faith." University Of Pittsburgh Law Review43: 307-361.
11.
Levy, L.W.1986Origins Of The Fifth Amendment. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
12.
Oaks, D.H.1970Studying the exclusionary rule in search and seizure . University Of Chicago Law Review37: 665-757.
13.
Marks, T.C., M.A. Hanley, and M.T. Luttier1980A personal right to exclusion- A criticism of United States v. Calandra. Stetson Law Review9: 309-331.
14.
Nardulli, P.F.1983The societal cost of the exclusionary rule: An empirical assessment. American Bar Foundation Research Journal, 1983: 585-609.
15.
Ranney, J.T.1985The exclusionary rule—The illusion vs. the reality. Montana Law Review46: 289-305.
16.
Schlesinger, S.R.1977Exclusionary Injustice. New York : M. Dekker.
17.
Schrock, T.S., and R.C. Welsh1974Up from Calandra: The exclusionary rule as a constitutional requirement. Minnesota Law Review59: 251-383.
18.
Schwartz, H.1966Retroactivity, reliability, and due process: A reply to professor Mishkin. University Of Chicago Law Review33: 719-768.
19.
Whitebread, C.H.1985The Burger court's counter-revolution in criminal procedure: The recent criminal decisions of the United States Supreme Court . Washburn Law Journal24: 471-498.
20.
Whitebread, C.H., and C. Slobogin1986Criminal Procedure: An Analysis Of Cases And Concepts . 2nd ed. Mineola, New York : Foundation Press
