Roberts Court disavows exclusionary rule in case of isolated misconduct
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?_r=1&hp
-
-
- Crazilla
- added this
"This month, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in Herring v. United States, a 5-to-4 decision, took a big step toward the goal he had discussed a quarter-century before [“the campaign to amend or abolish the exclusionary rule” [his words]]. Taking aim at one of the towering legacies of the Warren Court, its landmark 1961 decision applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the chief justice’s majority opinion established for the first time that unlawful police conduct should not require the suppression of evidence if all that was involved was isolated carelessness. That was a significant step in itself. More important yet, it suggested that the exclusionary rule itself might be at risk."
One may consider this a red flag following a steady stream of warning signs, a highlight of which was Roberts' appointment in the first place. The question is, how much police misconduct should be tolerated before evidence obtained thereby becomes inadmissible?
One may consider this a red flag following a steady stream of warning signs, a highlight of which was Roberts' appointment in the first place. The question is, how much police misconduct should be tolerated before evidence obtained thereby becomes inadmissible?
-
- groups:
- Law
-
- tags:
- Law, Police, Fair trial
