Crim pro people: did anyone else hate exclusionary rules?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Antilles Haven
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:34 am

Crim pro people: did anyone else hate exclusionary rules?

Postby Antilles Haven » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:40 pm

Just learning about reasonable reliance, standing, attenuation, and independent discovery, was the first time that the material itself actually really pissed me off.

The fact that a cop can say "Oops, we may have searched your house pursuant to a completely unlawful arrest, but it was the other county's computer glitch, so fuck you, it's still getting admitted." Just doesn't really sit right with me. And I really want someone to explain to me why part and parcel doesn't make sense anymore, thanks.

User avatar
BarbellDreams
Posts: 2256
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Crim pro people: did anyone else hate exclusionary rules?

Postby BarbellDreams » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:31 pm

I did a seminar paper on how the decision in Herring v. US essentially made the 4th amendment obsolete. Yeah, it kinda sucks.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Crim pro people: did anyone else hate exclusionary rules?

Postby kalvano » Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:45 pm

I don't know why they bother with even pretending the 4th Amendment is in any way still enforced.

Green Crayons
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:08 pm

Re: Crim pro people: did anyone else hate exclusionary rules?

Postby Green Crayons » Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:52 am

Herring is at least only applicable to 4A violations that are attenuated from the arrest. Sucks because the standard itself is an enormous exception to the ER (e.g., apparently you need something along the lines of a recording of the state employee twirling their mustache and cackling when the violation occurs to prove that the violation was willful/knowing/systemic negligence). But at least it isn't the standard for when violations are "on the scene" of the arrest (e.g., Hudson v. Michigan).


<insert highfalutin commentary re: Form of Words>

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Crim pro people: did anyone else hate exclusionary rules?

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 3:31 pm

Just because the exclusionary rule is not available doesn't mean that the 4th Amendment goes unenforced. There are certainly other remedies available 4th Amendment violations - both state tort law and § 1983. Remember that the generally accepted purpose of the exclusionary rule is to act as a deterrent and I don't really see how we deter police by applying the exclusionary rule in cases where deterrence doesn't make a difference.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armylaw101, blueapple, cdemps3, dylicious, Kahlo, Voynich and 8 guests