Abstract
This article reviews the United States Supreme Court decisions on the rationale for the exclusionary rule and numerous law review articles suggesting changes in the rule. A new model is proposed to dovetail with the rule. The courts would participate in developing a compendium of rules and regulations for officers to follow in order to protect constitutional rights. Evidence would continue to be excluded if it were illegally seized in a bad faith. All officers who violate constitutional rights would be subject to remedial education. Supervisory officers and training personnel would also be responsible for the violations committed by line officers. Violations of constitutional rights would be considered when promotions and other personnel decisions are made. Lastly, the victim would be compensated by the governmental agency employing the offending officer with the agency seeking reimbursement from the employee.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice (1973)Standards Relating to the Urban Police Function.
American Law Institute (1975)Proposed Official Draft Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure. Amsterdam, “Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment,”Minnesota Law Review 58:349 (1974).
Anonymous Student Comment (1968) “The Federal Injunction as a Remedy for Unconstitutional Police Conduct,”Yale Law Journal 78:143.
Anonymous Student Comment (1970) “Use of Section 1983 to Remedy Unconstitutional Police Conduct: Guarding the Guards,”Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Law Review 5:104.
Batey (1976) “Deterring Fourth Amendment Violations through Police Disciplinary Reform,”American Criminal Law Review 14:245.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations 403 US 388 (1971).
Boker and Carrigan (1976) “Making the Constable Culpable: A Proposal to Improve the Exclusionary Rule,”Hastings Law Journal 27:1291.
Boyd v. United States 116 US 616 (1886).
Burger (1964) “Who Will Watch the Watchman?”American University Law Review 14:1.
Brown v. Illinois 422 US 590 (1975).
Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 US 443 (1971).
Davidow (1973) “Criminal Procedure Ombudsman as a Substitute for the Exclusionary Rule: A Proposal,”Texas Technical Law Review 4:317.
David (1975)Police Discretion.
Elkins v. United States 364 US 206 (1960).
Illinois v. Krull 94 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1987).
Kaplan (1974) “The Limits of the Exclusionary Rule,”Stanford Law Review 26:1027.
Levin (1974) “An Alternative to the Exclusionary Rule for Fourth Amendment Violations,”Judicature 58:74.
Mapp v. Ohio 367 US 643 (1961).
Maryland v. Garrison 94 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1987).
Massachusetts v. Sheppard 104 SCT 3424 (1984).
McNabb v. United States 318 US 332 (1943).
Oakes (1970) “Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure,”University of Chicago Law Review 37:665.
Olmstead v. United States 227 US 438 (1928).
Spiotto (1973) “The Search and Seizure Problem—Two Approaches: The Canadian Tort Remedy v. the United States Exclusionary Rule,”Journal of Police Science and Administration 1:36.
Stone v. Powell 428 US 465 (1976).
United States v. Almeida-Sanchez 413 US 266 (1973).
United States v. Calendra 414 US 338 (1974).
United States v. Janis 428 US 433 (1976).
United States v. Leon 104 SCT 3405 (1984).
United States v. Peltier 422 US 531 (1975).
Weeks v. United States 232 US 383 (1914).
Wright (1972) “Must the Criminal Go Free If the Constable Blunders?”Texas Law Review 50:736.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaci, J.H. Improving the exclusionary rule: A remedial education model. AJCJ 12, 147–166 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02888933
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02888933