Show Less
You do not have access to this content

Advanced Introduction to U.S. Criminal Procedure

Christopher Slobogin

In this Advanced Introduction, Christopher Slobogin covers every significant aspect of U.S. criminal procedure. Focusing on Supreme Court cases and the most important statutory rules that provide the framework for the criminal justice system, he illuminates the nuances of American criminal procedure doctrine and offers factual examples of how it is applied. Chapters cover police practices such as search and seizure, interrogation, and identification procedures, as well as the pretrial, trial and post-conviction process.
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

The exclusionary rule and other remedies for police misconduct

Christopher Slobogin

Extract

The exclusionary rule—the rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments is inadmissible at trial—is probably the most controversial topic in all of criminal procedure. Opponents of the rule point not only to the obvious fact that the suppression of evidence obtained through searches and seizures, interrogations, and identification procedures can result in dismissal or reduction of charges against a clearly guilty person. They also argue that exclusion often fails to achieve its goal of deterring police misconduct, because its most direct impact falls on prosecutors, not law enforcement officers. Yet the rule’s proponents insist that, despite its flaws, the rule is still the optimal method of ensuring obedience to the Constitution’s mandates, and that allowing courts to use evidence obtained through unconstitutional means undermines the integrity of the judicial system.

No constitutional provision specifically requires exclusion. However, the Fifth Amendment’s declaration that “no person … shall be compelled to be a witness against himself” does suggest that compelled statements and testimony should not be admitted into evidence. In the 1886 decision of Boyd v. United States,1 the Supreme Court relied on that language in suppressing invoices obtained through compulsory process (i.e., a subpoena), and declared that this compulsion was also “the equivalent of search and seizure—an unreasonable search and seizure—within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” As a result, in federal courts exclusion eventually became the remedy not only when the Fifth Amendment was infringed, but also...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.