Using arguments identified in the chapter, evaluate whether the exclusionary rule should be abolished

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The exclusionary rule was controversial when it was adopted in 1961 and remains so today. In a 1981 speech, President Reagan argued that it is absurd to throw an entire case out of court just because of a law enforcement error. Law professor Yale Kamisar (1978) argued that a court should not tolerate unconstitutional conduct by admitting such evidence. A court that admits the evidence in a case involving a "run of the mill" Fourth Amendment violation demonstrates an insufficient commitment to the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. While the Mapp decision remains controversial, the nature of the debate has changed. Rather than calling for an entire abolution of the exclusionary rule, critics suggest modifications. This shift in thinking is reflected in the Reagan administration's Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime (1981). Although composed largely of long-standing critics of the exclusionary rule, the final report called only for its modification, not its abolition. Among the alternatives proposed, former Chief Justice Warren Burger urged an "egregious violation standard" (Brewer v. Williams, 1977). Others have proposed an exception for reasonable mistakes by the police (Fyfe, 1982). To critics, modifications along these lines would reduce the number of arrests lost because of illegal searches, and the sanction would be more proportional to the seriousness of the Fourth Amendment violation. The Supreme Court, however, has recognized an "honest mistake" or a "good-faith" exception to the exclusionary rule only in extremely narrow and limited circumstances (United States v. Leon, 1984; Illinois v. Krull, 1987).