NCJ Number
131691
Journal
Law Enforcement Quarterly Dated: (August-September-October 1991) Pages: 13-14,26-27
Date Published
1991
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Some insist that the exclusionary rule has professionalized police activities, while others argue that it has produced uncertainty and frustration for police officers since criminals are sometimes released on technicalities.
Abstract
Although the exclusionary rule is not likely to be repealed, courts are beginning to recognize that the rule's purpose, to keep law enforcement honest and respectful of the rights of individuals, is not necessarily advanced by suppressing evidence in every case and for every violation. Inroads into a strict application of the exclusionary rule have begun primarily in the area of search warrants. Instead of following a superficial checklist, courts are now directed to make a practical, common sense decision to determine whether information in the warrant affidavit justifies a search. The good faith exception to a strict suppression rule has been encouraged by many legal scholars who argue that penalizing police officers who make honest errors in recovering evidence fails to serve the purpose of the exclusionary rule. Warrants that fail to specifically identify the place to be searched or the property to be seized are difficult to justify under the good faith exception. Judicial forgiveness of good faith errors based on an objective standard of reasonableness is not necessarily limited to search warrants. Courts have extended the good faith exception, and there is no reason why the rules developed for search warrants should not apply with equal force in the preparation and service of arrest warrants. 38 footnotes