NCJ Number
108817
Journal
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume: 31 Issue: 3 Dated: (December 1987) Pages: 203-209
Date Published
1987
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article examines the issue of illegal search and seizure as interpreted by the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and 'discretionary exclusion' as defined by the Australian high court in Bunning v. Cross (1978).
Abstract
The Australian Law Reform Commission views adherence by the United States to protection of the fourth amendment against illegally seized evidence as 'purist absolutism.' Australian and English courts treat the issue as a private matter between a police officer and the individual. 'Bunning' gave trial judges the discretion to exclude illegally seized evidence after weighing the competing requirements of bringing criminals to trial or encouraging unlawful conduct by arresting officers. The practice employed by the U.S. Supreme Court of weighing the loss of evidence against the effect of applying the exclusionary rule is seen as a 'good faith exception to the exclusionary rule,' similar to the 'discretion' exercised by the Anglo-Australian Courts. It is suggested that the Anglo-Australian approach merits consideration. 30 references.