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: 99100 Find in a Library
Title: Exclusionary Rule - Alternate Theories of Exclusion as Bases for State Court Activism
Journal: Annual Survey of American Law  Volume:1984  Issue:1  Dated:(1984)  Pages:95-120
Author(s): D M Kohane
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 26
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Following an examination of how Federal courts have used the technical violation exception and contextual limitations to reduce the scope of the exclusionary rule, this article discusses the ways in which States have reacted to these limitations.
Abstract: Recent U.S. Supreme Court exclusionary jurisprudence has emphasized that enforcement of the rule on the grounds that it will deter violations of personal rights is warranted only if the deterrence effects are not outweighed by their costs to the truth-finding process. In general, Federal courts have held that illegally seized evidence is admissible in grand jury proceedings and in probation or parole revocation proceedings. The view that deterrence is the only justification for invoking the rule also underlies the technical violation exception, an aspect of the good faith exception to the rule which permits the admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence when the official reasonably believed that the action was constitutional. Despite this emphasis on deterrence, in standing cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the rule is available only to those whose own privacy rights are violated, however great the damage to the rule's regulatory aims. In responding to limitations on the scope of the exclusionary rule, States have used a variety of approaches that transcend the Supreme Court's deterrence rationale and standing rules. By using regulatory, judicial integrity, and personal rights approaches and case law interpretations of State constitutional guarantees, as well as relaxation of the personal aggrievement requirement and the retention of the automatic standing rule, States have been able to find broader protections for their citizens against illegal searches and seizures. Included are 190 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Deterrence effectiveness; Exceptions to exclusionary rule; Exclusionary rule; Police legal limitations; Right of privacy; Search and seizure laws; State laws; 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.