skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 134132 Find in a Library
Title: Diminishing Scope of the Exclusionary Rule
Journal: Criminal Justice Policy Review  Volume:4  Issue:2  Dated:(1990)  Pages:105-114
Author(s): J M Moneymaker; W R Janikowski
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 10
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This essay examines the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court should consider further restricting the scope of the exclusionary rule.
Abstract: In 1961 the U.S. Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio reversed its decision in Wolf v. Colorado which left it to the States to develop methods for deterring unreasonable police conduct. "Mapp" ruled, on the other hand, that evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in State criminal prosecutions. The Court concluded that the experience of the States with alternative remedies for police misconduct had proven futile and ineffective. Essentially the Court found that other than the exclusionary rule, no other method had been effective in deterring police violations of the Constitution. Since "Mapp," a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have significantly diminished the scope and applicability of the exclusionary rule. In United States v. Calandra (1974), the Court concluded that application of the rule to a particular proceeding depended on use of a balancing-of-interests approach that would weigh the deterrent effect of the rule in a particular situation against the cost of being unable to use probative evidence. In United States v. Leon (1984), the court held that evidence obtained by police who had acted in the belief that a search warrant was valid could not be suppressed, even though the search warrant was subsequently found invalid. This "good faith" exception should be the last abridgement of the exclusionary rule if we are to avoid the annihilation of the single doctrine that prevents the police from benefiting from unlawful evidence collection. 22-item bibliography
Main Term(s): Exclusionary rule
Index Term(s): Deterrence effectiveness; Exceptions to exclusionary rule; Police legal limitations; Search and seizure; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.