Only $2.99/month

Evidence: Chapter 9

Terms in this set (20)

Throughout the history of the exclusionary rule there has been concern in the United States about the cost to society when otherwise reliable evidence is suppressed and apparently guilty persons go free.

Most other countries do not have an exclusionary rule triggered by police misconduct.

If, as appears to be the case, there is a growing sentiment in both the public and the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of some change in the exclusionary rule, what are the limits of such a change?

An "exclusionary rule" may be used to address different kinds of violations of individual rights.

Where police misconduct violates an individual right protected by the U.S. Constitution, the applicability of an exclusionary rule (and a court's ability to change the rule) can depend on the constitutional right violated

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments make it clear that the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of those amendments is itself the constitutional violation.

In other cases, such as violations of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule operates as a remedy for a constitutional violation that has occurred in the past; the admission of evidence acquired in a violation of the Fourth Amendment is not itself a violation of that Amendment.

The exclusion of such evidence is thus not constitutionally mandated, and the exclusionary rule as a remedy may be changed over time.
There are many exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

It is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will in the future hear cases where the full extent of the exclusionary rule is at issue.

The court has said the rule cannot be abolished altogether; it also likely that a majority of the nine judges of the Supreme Court would not rule for dramatic changes in the rule.