Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!jonab
From: jonab@sdcrdcf.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Legal Loopholes -- exclusionary rule
Message-ID: <1203@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Jul-84 11:05:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1203
Posted: Mon Jul 16 11:05:15 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jul-84 06:37:59 EDT
References: <426@teldata.UUCP> <1077@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: jonab@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Jonathan Biggar)
Organization: System Development Corporation, Santa Monica
Lines: 31

In article <1077@elsie.UUCP> mark@elsie.UUCP writes:

>Unfortunately, the only effective means of keeping the police from gathering
>or manufacturing evidence illegally it to exclude it from the trial.
>Suggestions that police should be prosecuted for their "crimes" will not
>work because: (a) the police won't arrest; (b) the DA won't prosecute;
>and (c) often there's no criminal statute that deals with the "crime". For
>example, there's nothing illegal (usually) about obtaining an improper
>search warrant, even if its done on purpose.

The original justification for the exclusionary rule, (as I understand
it), is to protect a person's freedom from "Illegal search and seizure",
guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution.  The idea was, in order to protect
this right, it must be impossible for any government agency to gain from
a violation of the right.  Thus, illegally gained evidence cannot be used
to convict a person.  The problem with the exclusionary rule is that
it has often been interpreted so liberally that criminals are allowed
to go free, even when there was no intent to deny the right of freedom
from illegal search and seizure.

The alternative to the exclusionary rule is not to make it a crime
for the police to obtain evidence illegaly, (unless they broke laws in
doing it such as breaking and entering, etc.), but to allow the
criminal to sue the police force in civil court on the grounds
of violating his civil rights.  The criminal will still go to jail when
illegal evidence is found, but what cop in his right mind will risk
being sued for $1 million because he violated someones rights?

Jon Biggar
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3}!sdcrdcf!jonab