Identify and explain the rationales behind the three justifications for the exclusionary rule. Which justification does SCOTUS use today?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

There are three justifications behind the exclusionary rule: the constitutional right justification, the judicial integrity justification, and the deterrence justification.

The constitutional right justification stems from the ancient legal saying "There is no right without a remedy.". Thus, when a constitutional right has been violated, the Constitution must afford a remedy or the right becomes meaningless.

The judicial integrity justification maintains that the honor and honesty of the courts forbid them to participate in unconstitutional conduct. Under this rationale, if courts allow evidence seized in violation of the Constitution to be admitted, they become a partner in the lawbreaking process, thus lessening their integrity.

The deterrence justification says that throwing out good evidence because it was obtained illegally sends a strong message to law enforcement. The message would not repair past conduct. Rather it would deter future misconduct by showing law enforcement what the effect of the misconduct might be.

Today, SCOTUS uses the third justification—the deterrence justification—to support the existence of the exclusionary rule.