The Exclusionary Rule On Trial - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-20-2008, 12:17 AM   #1
Forum Moderator
yolland's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:58 AM
The Exclusionary Rule On Trial

American Exception: U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err

New York Times, July 19

Bradley Harrison was driving a rented Dodge Durango from Vancouver to Toronto in the fall of 2004 with 77 pounds of cocaine in the trunk when a police officer pulled him over, found the drugs and arrested him. A year and a half later, an Ontario trial judge ruled that the officer’s conduct was a “brazen and flagrant” violation of Mr. Harrison’s rights. The officer’s explanation for stopping and searching Mr. Harrison--confusion about a license plate--was contrived and defied credibility, the judge said, and the search “was certainly not reasonable.”

In the United States, that would have been good news for Mr. Harrison. Under the American legal system’s exclusionary rule, the evidence against Mr. Harrison would have been suppressed as the result of an unlawful search. But both the Canadian trial judge and an appeals court refused to exclude the evidence. Mr. Harrison was sentenced to five years in prison. “Without minimizing the seriousness of the police officer’s conduct or in any way condoning it,” the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Mr. Harrison’s case in February, “the exclusion of 77 pounds of cocaine, with a street value of several millions of dollars and the potential to cause serious grief and misery to many, would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than would its admission.” The case is now before the Canadian Supreme Court.

The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence. “Foreign countries have flatly rejected our approach,” said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. “In every other country, it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.”

But there are signs that some justices on the United States Supreme Court may be ready to reconsider the American version of the exclusionary rule. Writing for the majority two years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia said that at least some unconstitutional conduct ought not require “resort to the massive remedy of suppressing evidence of guilt.” The court will soon have an opportunity to clarify matters. The justices will hear arguments on Oct. 7 about whether methamphetamines and a gun belonging to Bennie Dean Herring, of Brundidge, Ala., should be suppressed because the officers who conducted the search mistakenly believed he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant as a result of careless record-keeping by another police department.

Elsewhere in the world, courts have rejected what the Ontario appeals court in Mr. Harrison’s case called “the automatic exclusionary rule familiar to American Bill of Rights jurisprudence.” Australia also uses a balancing test. It considers the seriousness of the police misconduct, whether superiors approved or tolerated it, the gravity of the crime and the power of the evidence. “Any unfairness to the particular accused” in most cases, the High Court of Australia wrote in 1995, “will be of no more than peripheral importance.” The European Court of Human Rights, a notably liberal institution, refused in 2000 to require the suppression of illegally obtained evidence. Using such evidence to convict a man charged with importing heroin into England, the court said, did not make his trial unfair. In the United States, by contrast, evidence against criminal defendants is routinely and automatically suppressed when police misconduct is found. In the last week of June, for instance, courts in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington state suppressed evidence in cases involving drugs, guns, burglary and child pornography under the mandatory version of the exclusionary rule.

Some specialists in comparative criminal law say that the decentralized nature of American law enforcement, with thousands of local police departments around the nation, requires a more rigorous and consistent approach to deterring misconduct. The law enforcement systems in Canada and England, by contrast, are notably less fragmented and may be subject to more stringent professional discipline. But not always. The officer who pulled over Mr. Harrison’s car in Ontario thought the car should have had a front license plate, even though the car was from Alberta, which does not require one. “We respect the decision of the courts,” said Sgt. Pierre Chamberland, a spokesman for the Ontario Provincial Police, but “their criticism alone does not by default lead to an internal complaint.” Supporters of the American practice say that only strict application of the exclusionary rule can effectively address violations of the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures. “The exclusionary rule deters police misconduct in a straightforward and effective way,” said a supporting brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in the case the Supreme Court will hear in October. “It reduces the value of evidence obtained as a result of Fourth Amendment violations, and thus eliminates what would otherwise be a powerful incentive for police to engage in such violations.”

Several justices have in recent years questioned whether the rule still makes sense in light of what they called the increased professionalism of the police and the availability of alternative and arguably more direct ways to punish misconduct, including internal discipline and civil suits. Opponents of the rule say it is indirect, incomplete and in a way perverse. Even if it deters unlawful searches, exclusion of evidence, for instance, offers no remedy to innocent people whose rights were violated by unlawful searches. More important, as Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in 1954, the exclusionary rule “deprives society of its remedy against one lawbreaker because he has been pursued by another.” Or, in Judge Benjamin Cardozo’s famous mocking formulation in a 1926 decision for New York’s highest court rejecting the rule: “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.”

That reasoning continues to resonate with some experts. “Lots of scholars argue that the mandatory exclusionary rule ought to be re-examined,” said David A. Sklansky, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “Those scholars are not all on the right of the political spectrum.” Professor Sklansky said he believed that the rule’s benefits continued to outweigh its costs. Most specialists continue to support the rule, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University. “The U.S. experience is a consequence of history,” Professor Kerr said. “It’s a response to the police not following the law in the absence of this remedy.”

The idea that exclusion is the proper response to police misconduct is of relatively recent vintage. “Supporters of the exclusionary rule cannot point to a single major statement from the Founding--or even the antebellum or Reconstruction eras--supporting Fourth Amendment exclusion of evidence in a criminal trial,” Akhil Reed Amar, a law professor at Yale, wrote in the Harvard Law Review in 1994. According to Professor Amar, the framers of the Fourth Amendment assumed that the right it guaranteed would be enforced through civil lawsuits, not exclusion. “Both before and after the Revolution,” he wrote, “the civil trespass action tried to a jury flourished as the obvious remedy against haughty customs officers, tax collectors, constables, marshals and the like.” These days, law professors and defense lawyers say, civil suits are less likely to be effective. Criminals whose rights have been violated are not attractive plaintiffs, and they may not have the resources to litigate, particularly from behind bars. Civil suits must, moreover, overcome various legal doctrines limiting the liability of police officers and their employers.

The Supreme Court started requiring the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in 1914--but only in federal cases. For many decades afterward, the Supreme Court refused to apply the principle to states, saying they could choose the appropriate remedy for police misconduct--including civil suits and criminal prosecutions--and were not required to suppress evidence. In a 1949 decision, the court justified that position in part with a rationale now disfavored in some circles: a survey of foreign law. “Of 10 jurisdictions within the United Kingdom and the British commonwealth of nations,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote for the majority, “none has held evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure inadmissible.” The right to be free of arbitrary police intrusion is fundamental, Justice Frankfurter wrote, but the legal remedy for the violation of that right can vary.

It was not until 1961 that the Warren Court, in one of its signature decisions, concluded in Mapp v. Ohio that only the mandatory suppression of evidence could adequately address wrongdoing by the police in all cases, state and federal. Seven Cleveland police officers had broken into and searched Dollree Mapp’s home without producing a warrant, manhandling her and rummaging through her personal papers. Though the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the search had been unlawful, it affirmed Ms. Mapp’s conviction on obscenity charges based on materials the police found in her home. That was too much for a majority of the Supreme Court to stomach. “The state, by admitting evidence unlawfully seized, serves to encourage disobedience to the federal Constitution which it is bound to uphold,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote for the court. Only the exclusion of evidence could do the job, he said; other remedies had proved “worthless and futile.”

The Supreme Court has in recent years whittled away at the exclusionary rule by limiting its applicability and creating exceptions to it. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Scalia, neither of whom is enamored with citing foreign law, each noted in recent decisions that the American approach in this area is unique and has been universally rejected elsewhere. In a third decision two years ago, Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Scalia seemed to say that the exclusionary rule had outlived its original purpose. The case involved a conceded violation of a rule requiring police executing a search warrant to knock and announce themselves. Much had changed since the exclusionary rule was applied to states in 1961, Justice Scalia wrote. Police departments had become more professional, he said, and various kinds of civil suits against officials and the government had become available. “As far as we know,” Justice Scalia wrote for the court, “civil liability is an effective deterrent.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the four dissenters, said that exclusion remains the best and most reliable deterrent. He added that the logic of the majority’s objections was not limited to “knock and announce” violations but was “an argument against the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary principle itself.”

Probably a bit premature posting this now, but I found the article fascinating and figured that since we have several posters here who work in and/or have studied law, law enforcement or criminology, this case might be of some interest.

yolland [at]

μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 01:11 AM   #2
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
UberBeaver's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Well, we were kinda founded by political miscreants, so there's that. And the west was pioneered and built up by criminals. So it doesn't surprise me that it's sorta easy for crooks to get off. That's probably why our economy is generally so successful - it's a racket.

UberBeaver is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 09:01 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BonosSaint's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:58 PM
On the whole, I admire the exclusionary rule. In some ways, it is rule of which I am particularly proud. I don't know that civil trial is sufficient to prevent or punish police or prosecutorial misconduct or error and in many ways, I think the exclusion is a proper consequence of violation of the 4th. Without that sort of consequence, it becomes easier for even good faith police work to become lax and easier to deliberately avoid the protections set in place. But there is the rightful pragmatic concern of not letting a criminal go just because of a procedural error. I would support a comprehensive re-examination of the exclusion rule to see if a balance can be drawn that would protect both the defendant and society. I think this one is very complicated.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 09:34 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Vincent Vega's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,744
Local Time: 05:58 AM
I think that kind of a dogmatic exclusionary rule really has more disadvantages than advantages. If a police officer really bends the law to an unacceptable degree to gather evidence of course there is a point. But in how many cases is this the case, and in how many is it just a minor error, and why not examine it case by case as anything related to crime should be done?
I don't know if the argument that it ensures police to stay more honest does hold much water. In the end, the US is the only country with such a rule, yet police forces in most other countries are not more corrupt or careless than US police forces, at least not that I know of.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 09:42 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
anitram's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 11:58 PM
I don't have a lot of time now so I'll comment on this later, but this case is a Charter case, and specifically s. 24. That provision has statutory language that may explain this decision a little bit better (for example, the reference to bringing justice into disrepute). So I'll be back later (living in NY really is a lot of fun!).
anitram is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 09:53 AM   #6
you are what you is
Salome's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,057
Local Time: 05:58 AM
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
In the end, the US is the only country with such a rule, yet police forces in most other countries are not more corrupt or careless than US police forces, at least not that I know of.
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 11:49 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BonosSaint's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
I don't know if the argument that it ensures police to stay more honest does hold much water. In the end, the US is the only country with such a rule, yet police forces in most other countries are not more corrupt or careless than US police forces, at least not that I know of.
I don't think it ensures a more honest police force. I think it heightens the consequences of procedures that can be seen as violating the 4th. Now if one wants to change the rules under which evidence is legally obtained, that is a different argument.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-20-2008, 12:46 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BonosSaint's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 11:58 PM
"Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule .--Theoretically, there are several alternatives to the exclusionary rule. An illegal search and seizure may be criminally actionable and officers undertaking one thus subject to prosecution, but the examples when officers are criminally prosecuted for overzealous law enforcement are extremely rare. 158 A policeman who makes an illegal search and seizure is subject to internal departmental discipline which may be backed up in the few jurisdictions which have adopted them by the oversight of and participation of police review boards, but again the examples of disciplinary actions are exceedingly rare. 159 Persons who have been illegally arrested or who have had their privacy invaded will usually have a tort action available under state statutory or common law.

Moreover, police officers acting under color of state law who violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights are subject to a suit for damages and other remedies 160 under a civil rights statute in federal courts. 161 While federal officers and others acting under color of federal law are not subject jurisdictionally to this statute, the Supreme Court has recently held that a right to damages for violation of Fourth Amendment rights arises by implication out of the guarantees secured and that this right is enforceable in federal courts. 162 While a damage remedy might be made more effectual, 163 a number of legal and practical problems stand in the way. 164 Police officers have available to them the usual common-law defenses, most important of which is the claim of good faith. 165 Federal officers are entitled to qualified immunity based on an objectively reasonable belief that a warrantless search later determined to violate the Fourth Amendment was supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances. 166 And on the practical side, persons subjected to illegal arrests and searches and seizures are often disreputable persons toward whom juries are unsympathetic, or they are indigent and unable to bring suit. The result, therefore, is that the Court has emphasized exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence in subsequent criminal trials as the only effective enforcement method."

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 6 of 6

BonosSaint is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©