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: 81494 Find in a Library
Title: Search and Seizure of America
Journal: Human Rights  Volume:10  Issue:1  Dated:(Winter 1982)  Pages:14-17,46-47
Author(s): Y Kamisar
Date Published: 1982
Page Count: 6
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article argues that the exclusionary rule should be supplemented rather than abolished and analyzes the reasons for the widespread hostility toward the rule.
Abstract: The exclusionary rule asks the court to turn back the clock and reconstruct events as though the damaging evidence uncovered by the police never existed. From a public relations standpoint, deciding fourth amendment questions after the search or seizure has taken place is the worst time to do so, for now an apparently guilty person is relying on the fourth amendment. But from a practical standpoint, it is the first time such fourth amendment questions can be decided. Critics have called the exclusionary rule illogical, but it is not illogical to conclude that the government is supposed to honor the right of people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. If the government violates that right, it should not be able to benefit from it. The exclusionary rule is a seemingly remote and inherently limited control device. The exclusionary rule does not impose any framework of limitations on the police and it does not change the existing framework. The framework had been imposed by the State and Federal guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure long before the exclusionary rule was adopted. Cases discussed in relation to the exclusionary rule include the Minnesota case of O'Connor v. Johnson, Mapp v. Ohio, and the 1914 Weeks case. References are contained within the text.
Index Term(s): Exclusionary rule; Search and seizure laws
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=81494

*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.