NCJ Number
94135
Date Published
1984
Length
51 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews the exclusionary rule from the perspectives of public, professional, and administrative costs. The courts should adopt a balancing approach to restrict its use as a remedy for fourth amendment violations.
Abstract
The development of the exclusionary rule has its roots in the fourth amendment. The two often stated reasons given for retention of the rule are deterrence of police misconduct and preservation of judicial integrity. The lack of a direct sanction on the offending officer is a serious drawback of the rule. The indirect sanction of 'professional frustration' does not work because the police officer seldom gets appropriate feedback from the cases in which he was involved. From the standpoint of the judiciary, the rule backfires due to its lack of proportionality. The exclusionary rule imposes costs on the public by freeing the guilty, diverting courts from finding the truth, and damaging the fabric of the law. There are professional costs to the people within the criminal justice system. Because the rule is so rigid and draconian, police, attorneys, and judges find themselves engaging in distortion to allow the consideration of evidence and to overlook the violations which would result in the suppression of that evidence. Administrative costs, borne by the taxpayer, include extended trial time and an increased appellate court load. The courts should adopt a balancing approach to prevent the rule from being invoked whenever the societal costs of applying the rule exceed the societal benefits. Application of a balancing approach would produce socially sensible decisions, and would also restore some order and rationality to this area of the law. State and Federal legislatures should develop direct alternative remedies for controlling police behavior. Such alternative remedies have the potential to render the exclusionary rule both practically and constitutionally superfluous. A total of 226 case notes are given.