What Can We Learn From the English Approach to the Problem of Illegally Seized Evidence?

• NCJ Number: 93647
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 67 Issue: 9 Dated: (April 1984) Pages: 424-435
• Author(s): J D Hirshel
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 12 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article compares the United State's exclusionary rule of evidence to the English experience with the reliability principle.

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court held 23 years ago that evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a State Court. Integral to the Court's decision was the finding of the worthlessness of other means of protecting fourth amendment rights. The inadmissibility in court proceedings of the ill-gotten gains of an unconstitutional search serves as the only viable means of protecting people in the United States from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of their government officials. The rule in England is that if relevent, evidence is admissible, there is no rule of automatic exclusion; criminals do not go free because of blunders by law enforcement personnel. The English also voice far greater faith in mechanisms other than the exclusionary rule for dealing with the problem of police abuse. Their experience with using disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions against errant police officers has been more successful than in the United States. English procedures for disciplining and prosecuting police officers are formal and standardized. It may be that there are sufficient dissimilarities between the United States and England to render these procedures workable in England and unworkable in the United States. While most search and seizure problems in the United States relate to victimless crimes, search and seizure problems in England tend to involve property offenses. The English experience suggests that greater prominence should be given to the reliability principle and that the exclusionary rule should be modified so that insubstantial or reasonable good faith violations of Fourth Amendment rights will not result in the exclusion of the illegally seized evidence. A total of 73 notes are included. (Author summary modified)