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

[Antilles Haven]

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.

[BarbellDreams]

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

[kalvano]

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

[Green Crayons]

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>

[vamedic03]

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.