The Exclusionary Rule in the Year 2000: Due Process Reborn?
| Author | Judy Hails Kaci |
| Published date | 01 August 1987 |
| Date | 01 August 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/104398628700300305 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
30
The
Exclusionary
Rule
in
the
Year
2000:
Due
Process
Reborn?
by
Judy
Hails
Kaci
ABSTRACT
Since
its
inception
the
Exclusionary
Rule
has
been
controversial.
Originally
founded
on
judicial
integrity,
it
is
now
almost
exclusively
viewed
as
having
validity
only
if
it
is
a
deterrent.
Neither
rationale
has
been
satisfactorily
established
through
empirical
research.
Based
on
recent
precedents,
it
is
extrapolated
that
the
recently
established
"good
faith"
exception
to
the
Exclusionary
Rule
will
grow.
Three
possible
versions
of
the
Exclusionary
Rule
for
the
year
2000
are
presented:
(1)
"good
faith"
will
apply
to
all
police
conduct;
(2)
only
intentional
conduct
or
deliberate
indifference
will
result
in
suppression;
(3)
or
due
process
will
re-
emerge
as
the
constitutional
basis
for
suppression.
The
life
of
the
Exclusionary
Rule
has
been
a
troubled
one.
It
flashed
across
the
page
of
constitutional
history
in
1886,
but
did
not
establish
a
foothold
until
1914.
Although
never
free
from
controversy,
it
overcame
the
major
setback
of
Wolf
v.
Colorado
(1949)
and
reached
its
zenith
in
Mapp v. Ohio
1961 ).
Since
that
time
it
has
been
buffeted
about
as
the
Supreme
Court
reassessed
its
basis
and
constitutional
mandate.
This
article
will
briefly
review
the
history
of
the
Exclusionary
Rule
with
emphasis
on
its
current
stand
in
the
Rehnquist
Court.
Its
empirical
validity
will
also
be
addressed.
Future
changes
in
the
Court
will
be
projected
also
followed
by
an
estimation
of
their
effect
on
the
Exclusionary
Rule.
Historical
Basis
for
the
Exclusionary
Rule
A
review of
the
legendary
case
of
Weeks
v.
United
States
(1914)
shows
that
the
original
basis
for the
Exclusionary
Rule
was
judicial
integrity.
To continue reading
Request your trial