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: 97222 Find in a Library
Title: Crime File: Exclusionary Rule
Series: NIJ Crime Files
Corporate Author: Police Foundation
United States of America
Date Published: 1984
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Rockville, MD 20850
Police Foundation
Washington, DC 20036
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 84-IJ-CX-0031
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Audiovisual Sales
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20850
United States of America
Document: PDF (Study Guide)|Video (28:26)
Format: Video (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This video cassette, number 1 in the Crime File series, presents background material on some U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertinent to the use of the exclusionary rule in sanctioning illegal police searches and seizures (Mapp v. Ohio and Shepherd v. Massachusetts); the moderator, James Q. Wilson, poses questions to Professor Yale Kamisar, University of Michigan Law School, and D. Lowell Jensen, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, designed to probe the controversial implications of the exclusionary rule.
Abstract: Background material on the case of Mapp v. Ohio interprets the Supreme Court's holding that evidence obtained by an illegal police search and seizure is not admissible in court. The background information on the Shepherd v. Massachusetts decision interprets the Supreme Court's development of the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule, which holds that when police act properly in obtaining a warrant and executing a search, even though the warrant itself may be flawed, the evidence obtained in the search is admissible in court. Professor Kamisar, when questioned about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the exclusionary rule, argues that the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence simply places the police where they would be in their investigation had they not acted illegally. Associate Attorney General Jensen argues that the exclusionary rule has the effect of neither punishing the police responsible for the illegal search nor punishing an offender whose crime is proven by the illegally obtained evidence; he views the exclusionary rule as a punishment of society, because it releases a criminal back into the community and fails to ensure society that the courts do justice. Kamisar counters that it is the fourth amendment that costs society, not the exclusionary rule, because it intends that the privacy rights of all citizens, criminals as well as innocent persons, are to be protected. Both men support the Supreme Court's 'good faith' interpretation of the exclusionary rule.
Index Term(s): Exclusionary rule; Police legal limitations; Search and seizure laws; US Supreme Court decisions; Videotapes
Note: Videocassette (3/4 inch, Beta, and VHS), 28 minutes in length, color.
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.