The Exclusionary Rule at Risk
By Kristopher A. Nelson
in
February 2009
200 words / 1 min.
Tweet
Share
A longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule, is getting bruised. The rule requires courts to exclude - or throw out - some evidence seized by law enforcement through illegal searches. But a ruling last month by the Supremes allowed the prosecution of an Alabama man on drug-possession and gun-possession charges despite […]
Please note that this post is from 2009. Evaluate with care and in light of later events.
A longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule, is getting bruised. The rule requires courts to exclude – or throw out – some evidence seized by law enforcement through illegal searches.
But a ruling last month by the Supremes allowed the prosecution of an Alabama man on drug-possession and gun-possession charges despite the fact that the contraband was found through an illegal search. The 5-to-4 decision in Herring v U.S. is being hailed as perhaps the start of the fulfillment of a longtime conservative dream.
For more, see:
- Defendants’ Ability to Suppress Evidence Taking a Hit in the Wall Street Journal
- Why Does the U.S. Have an Exclusionary Rule?