Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbneb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!cbneb!adm
From: adm@cbneb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Endangered Species:Individual Rights - (nf)
Message-ID: <1005@cbneb.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jul-84 09:21:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbneb.1005
Posted: Thu Jul 12 09:21:46 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jul-84 05:16:48 EDT
Sender: adm@cbneb.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OHIO
Lines: 15

#R:hpcnoe:-1510000100:cbnap:17000002:000:565
cbnap!tel    Jul 12 08:31:00 1984

	While not a "legal expert" it seems to me that the exclusionary
rule only protects those who are guilty.  If laws are violated in the 
collection of evidence then allow the evidence to be admitted
but bring counter charges against the officer, magistrate, or
whoever violated the law. Then all guilty parties would receive
their proper and just rewards.  After all, that is the point of the 
legal system isn't it. The current system seems more geared to
protecting the guilty at expense of the victim and society.

		Punish the guilty!
			Tom  at ihnp4!cbnap!tel