skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 31652 Find in a Library
Title: DEMISE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE - WOLFF V RICE
Journal: CRIMINAL JUSTICE QUARTERLY  Volume:3  Issue:4  Dated:(FALL 1975)  Pages:169182
Author(s): D S BAIME; J DECICCO; D L GROSSMAN
Corporate Author: New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice
United States of America
Date Published: 1975
Page Count: 14
Sponsoring Agency: New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice
Princeton, NJ 08540
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF, SUBMITTED TO THE US SUPREME COURT BY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AGAINST THE EXCLUSION OF COMPETENT, MATERIAL, AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS.
Abstract: THE LEGAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE BRIEF HOLDS THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCLUSIONARY RULE SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR ABROGATED IN FAVOR OF MORE EFFICACIOUS REMEDIES BECAUSE ITS EFFECT IS WITHOUT LEGAL PRECEDENT, IT RAISES BARRIERS TO GOOD FAITH POLICE PERFORMANCE, IT PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE TO BREAK THE LAW (THROUGH THE RENDERING OF FALSE VERDICTS), AND CIVIL REMEDIES ARE A SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO THE RULE. THE BRIEF FURTHER ADVOCATES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ABROGATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE RULE, FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REMEDIES SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONERS WHO DO SO ON FOURTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL GROUNDS. THE BRIEF ALSO ARGUES THAT REHABILITATION OF SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED ON LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE IS A REALISTIC AND BALANCED APPROACH TO CASES WHERE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE'S PURPOSES HAVE BEEN SERVED BY THE FACT THAT THE OFFICERS INVOLVED HAVE OBTAINED A WARRANT PRIOR TO THE SEARCH.
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Exclusionary rule; Judicial decisions; Judicial process; New Jersey; Rules of evidence; Search and seizure laws; Search warrants; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=31652

*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.