Exclusionary Rule Legal Doctrine and Social Research on Constitutional Norms

• NCJ Number: 104716
• Author(s): R L Akers; L Lanza-Kaduce
• Date Published: 1986
• Length: 6 pages
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University Research Bulletin, V 2, N 5 (1986). This is a revision of a paper presented at the Criminal Justice Center of the Sam Houston State University, October 5, 1985.

Annotation

Police searches that are of questionable constitutionality do not relate directly to the operation of the exclusionary rule; instead, they relate both to the moral evaluation that the police officer places on the type of search conducted and to departmental policy.

Abstract

Data came from confidential questionnaires administered to active officers in a city police department and a county sheriff's office in a southern metropolitan area. Responses came from 224 officers. They answered questions about the frequency with which they had conducted searches of questionable constitutionality or known unconstitutionality, their perceptions of risks of departmental or court sanctions for unconstitutional searches, and their moral evaluations of searches without probable cause or when probable cause was uncertain. Ninety-five percent of the officers had never conducted a search known to be unconstitutional, but 21 percent had conducted searches of questionable constitutionality. Almost none of the officers' restraint about questionable searches could be attributed to the direct deterrent effect of having evidence suppressed in court. Any deterrent effect appeared related to departmental disciplinary policy. In addition, officers who believed that questionable searches were wrong were less likely to engage in them. Thus, it is misleading to speak of the deterrent effects of the exclusionary rule. Data tables, 17 references, and list of 18 cases cited.