PRIVACY INTEREST OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT - DOES MAPP V. OHIO PROTECT IT OR PILLAGE IT

• NCJ Number: 6482
• Journal: West Virginia Law Review Volume: 74 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (NOVEMBER/ JANUARY 1971-72) Pages: 154-162
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 9 pages
• Corporate Author: West Virginia University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW IS TOO SEVERE A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME OF VIOLATING 4TH AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

Abstract

SOME RECENT CASES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE HAS RESULTED IN THE DILUTION OF SUBSTANTIVE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. COURTS OFTEN LESSEN CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS IN ORDER TO AVOID SUPPRESSING ESSENTIAL EVIDENCE. THE COURTS HAVE UTILIZED REASONABLENESS OF A SEARCH, STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH, OR EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT TO CIRCUMVENT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THUS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES NOT PROTECT THE PRIVACY INTEREST BUT STEALS FROM IT. TO PREVENT INVASIONS OF PRIVACY BY THE STATE, THE AUTHOR RECOMMENDS CHANGING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE.