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: 63738 Find in a Library
Title: IS IT TIME TO ABOLISH THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE? (FROM CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 1979, BY R G IACOVETTA AND DAE H CHANG - SEE NCJ-63717)
Author(s): J M KRESS
Corporate Author: Carolina Academic Press
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: Carolina Academic Press
Durham, NC 27701
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: CITING PERTINENT CASE LAW, THIS ESSAY EXAMINES THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, ITS DEVELOPMENT AND USE, ABUSES THAT CAN RESULT FROM ITS USE, LACK OF REMEDIES FOR THE INNOCENT, AND ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON.
Abstract: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRES THAT EVEN TRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE BE BARRED FROM USE AT THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IF THE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED THROUGH THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BECAME APPLICABLE TO ALL THE STATES THROUGH THE 1961 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN MAPP V. OHIO. SUPPORTERS OF THE RULE ARGUE THAT IT WILL DETER IMPROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURTS, AND SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW WHEN THERE IS NO REAL ALTERNATIVE TO SUCH A RULE. OPPONENTS CONTEND THAT IT PREVENTS RELIABLE EVIDENCE FROM BEING CONSIDERED BY JURORS AND HINDERS LAW OFFICIALS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO PREVENT OR DETECT CRIME. OPPONENTS OFFER OTHER ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING VARIOUS DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, THE COMMON LAW SANCTION OF TORT DAMAGES, AND MORE. CONCLUDING THE ESSAY ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DISTINCTIONS TO BE MADE BETWEEN MALICIOUS AND MISTAKEN MISCONDUCT BY THE POLICE. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (RFC)
Index Term(s): Evidence; Evidence collection; Exclusionary rule; Judicial decisions; Jurisprudence; Police legal limitations
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63738

*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.