# US law: the exclusionary rule
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [January 15, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426 "2009-01-15T14:31:24Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@NoCoolUserName](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoCoolUserName)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/1 "2009-01-15T14:31:24Z")
As I understand it, the exclusionary rule says that if the police do something wrong (i.e. don’t have a search warrant) then anything they find cannot be used during trial. It seems to me that this punishes the general public more that it punishes the office involved.
Let’s take a simple example: An officer opens the door to a suspect’s apartment. The officer sees a gun on a table. The gun turns out to be the one that had been used in a crime. This proves (I’m simplifying here) that the suspect committed the crime. Because the officer didn’t have a warrant, the gun cannot be used in the trial.
Here’s my question: Since the gun proves that the suspect DID commit the crime, freeing the suspect puts a criminal on the street, where additional crimes are likely to be committed against the general public. Why is it that the office is not punished for his illegal act (entering the apartment without permission), and why is it that the general public IS punished (criminal on the street)? Why isn’t the protection-from-illegal-search provision enforced by punishing the one who violated it?
Color me confused.
---
### Author:  [@DoubleJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoubleJ)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/2 "2009-01-15T15:08:30Z")
(Not a lawyer, but I used to watch a lot of Law and Order.)
The people doing the violating are punished – nothing the police see/find that they shouldn’t have, nor anything they find later as a result, is usable in court. This seems like it’s punishing society at large, and in your narrow example above, it is. But the whole point is to prevent “fishing expeditions” in which the cops just run through the neighborhood barging into people’s houses looking for evidence.
The exclusion of illegally-obtained evidence is to prevent the slippery slope. For every gut feeling a cop has and is right – for which the PD would probably happily pay just a fine – you’d have (dozens? hundreds? two? one is too many, IMO) of people who effectively have their homes broken into by the police. That, as they say, would be a bad thing.
Basically, in your case the cops came to the suspect’s house in one of three ways: Either they had a reason to believe the evidence was there, in which case they should have played by the rules and gotten a warrant; they were canvassing the neighborhood and violating everybody’s rights in which case they get nothing to use and should be disciplined themselves; or they were invited in, in which case anything they see laying around is open game.
The process of getting a warrant is checks and balances in action. The judiciary (whichever judge is reviewing warrant requests that day) is double-checking and exercising control over the executive (the police). It keeps everybody more or less honest.
---
### Author:  [@DoubleJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoubleJ)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/3 "2009-01-15T15:15:57Z")
(Stupid 5-minute rule)
Quick add: The whole getting-a-warrant thing goes out the window if they’re chasing you, either due to a warrant or because you fled the scene of a crime. Depending on jurisdiction, this can include pursuing you into private buildings, chasing you across town/county lines, and possibly into other states. But even that has its limits – they have to have good reason to believe you’re hiding in the garage, and not the azaleas.
Actually, that brings up a follow-up question: Let’s say the cops are pursuing a guy who just knocked over the 7-11. He hides in John Q. Stoner’s garage, in which ol’ John has been very successfully hiding a marijuana farm. The police bust in and find the robber amongst the foliage. Everything I “know” about the law says the cops have the right to be there, but for the robber, not John. Are they required to “not notice” that John’s green thumb is being put to non-conventional use? What if it were a meth lab instead? My hunch tells me that even though the two are morally (IMO) different, they’d fall legally under the same rules.
---
### Author:  [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/4 "2009-01-15T15:17:24Z")
> [@NoCoolUserName](#):
>
> Here’s my question: Since the gun proves that the suspect DID commit the crime, freeing the suspect puts a criminal on the street, where additional crimes are likely to be committed against the general public. Why is it that the office is not punished for his illegal act (entering the apartment without permission), and why is it that the general public IS punished (criminal on the street)? Why isn’t the protection-from-illegal-search provision enforced by punishing the one who violated it?
Because it’s not about punishing the criminal justice system or the public or the accused, it’s about protecting the civil liberties of the accused. The exclusionary rule guarantees that illegally obtaining evidence is fruitless. A fine or demotion would only ensure that violations of civil liberties are “costly” in some vague financial way. That seems to obviously be a much weaker deterrent than what we have in place now.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/5 "2009-01-15T15:36:47Z")
It’s also important to note that there are two large exceptions to the “You gotta have a warrant” rule:
1. When the police have “probable cause” to suspect the soon-to-be-accused of having committed, or being in the process of committing, a specific crime, and the time needed to get a warrant means that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the soon-to-be-accused would make his escape, or the crime-in-process would be brought to completion, the police may act without warrant. The term “probable cause” is of course a term of art, with a specific meaning defined in case law. An example might be that the police, present at the scene for quite other purposes, hear a voice screaming “help, help!” from behind a closed door.
2. If the alleged criminal is so foolish as to leave evidence tying him to a crime in open view of he public, the police may act on the basis of said evidence. Again, case law has refined what “open view” means to a term of art. The old joke about the woman who calls the police because her neighbors can be seen fornicating in their home, and when the police respond, she shows them that if one stands on a box in her attic looking out a window with binoculars… points out one limit. But something lying on a car seat, visible through the car indow, or something visible from the street through the picture window of a house, are legitimate examples of ‘open view.’
---
### Author:  [@ethelbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethelbert)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/6 "2009-01-15T15:58:26Z")
When you hear about incidents like this, you usually hear about the criminal that got away because an important piece of evidence was thrown out. You don’t often hear about the innocent person who was subjected to an illegal search because of a “mistake” (and not because it doesn’t happen). If police can search you because of a mistake and still use the evidence (which apparently they can), I strongly suspect that a great deal more of these “mistakes” will be made and more people, both innocent and guilty, will be subject to these searches. This is the reason for the exclusionary rule. Evidence gained in such a manner is fruit from a poison tree. The authorities will go to that tree more often now that they can keep the fruit.
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/7 "2009-01-15T16:31:25Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#):
>
> The exclusionary rule guarantees that illegally obtaining evidence is fruitless. A fine or demotion would only ensure that violations of civil liberties are “costly” in some vague financial way. That seems to obviously be a much weaker deterrent than what we have in place now.
It’s not at all obvious to me. Today, if a police officer does lousy paperwork and executes a search warrant on 19 main st instead of 91 main st, nothing happens to him\*, the only effect is that the search is invalidated. Tell the officer that he’s on the hook for trespassing, breaking and entering, a demotion/dismissal from the force, or a $1,000 fine, I’d suspect that he would be a lot more interested in being damn sure he’s got the right house number.
\*Maybe there’s some internal performance measurement that he’d get dinged on, but clearly there is no direct legal consequence.
---
### Author:  [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/8 "2009-01-15T16:41:22Z")
> [@](#):
>
> FACTS
> Just before midnight on March 26, 2002, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department received information from a confidential informant that Brandon Prouse was trying to sell the informant 5 or 6 quarts of anhydrous ammonia. Deputies ran a background check on Prouse and discovered that he was wanted on a felony arrest warrant for a probation violation in an aggravated battery case. At around 1:30 a.m. on March 27, 2002, the sheriff’s office began surveillance on the house where the informant indicated Prouse might be found. At the time of the surveillance, however, the deputies neither had a search warrant for the house, nor did they know who owned the residence.
> At about 2 a.m., Prouse stepped out of the house and walked into the front yard. The uniformed deputies ordered him to stop, but Prouse ran back into the residence through the front door. Four deputies followed Prouse inside. They pursued Prouse through different rooms and then arrested him.
> Inside the house, the deputies smelled a strong odor of anhydrous ammonia. As they moved through the residence, the deputies saw in plain view various items that they believed were consistent with a methamphetamine lab. Besides Prouse, the deputies discovered six other individuals inside the house, including Thomas, who owned the residence. A deputy started to open an interior door into the garage to check for more people, but the smell of anhydrous ammonia from the garage was so overwhelming that he immediately shut the door. Because of the strong chemical smell and for safety reasons, the deputies ordered all occupants to go outside onto the front lawn area.
> Once the occupants of the house were outside, one of the deputies told his fellow deputies that he would perform a pat-down search of the seven occupants. When the deputy asked Thomas who owned the house, Thomas admitted ownership. During the pat-down search, Thomas said, “You might as well get [my] dope,” and indicated that he had methamphetamine in his left front pants pocket. The deputy reached into Thomas’ pocket and pulled out a bag containing smaller baggies filled with white rocks. Thomas was then placed under arrest.
> At the sheriff’s office, a detective started to Mirandize Thomas when Thomas interrupted and said “that wasn’t necessary” because both the methamphetamine lab and the drugs found on his person belonged to him. The detective proceeded to Mirandize Thomas, but Thomas refused to sign the waiver form. Despite Thomas’ refusal to sign the form, he orally indicated that he was willing to speak with the officers. Thomas, again, admitted ownership of the methamphetamine lab in his house and the drugs found on his person. Thomas told the officers that he learned how to make methamphetamine in prison. He indicated that this was his first attempt at manufacturing methamphetamine and that, sometime before the deputies’ arrival at his house, the lab had blown up. In addition, Thomas admitted that he had obtained anhydrous ammonia and a large quantity of pseudoephedrine pills.
>
> * * *
>
> ANALYSIS
> Thomas contends that the district court should have granted his motions to suppress his statements and the evidence found in his house. Before trial, Thomas moved to suppress the evidence seized by the deputies on the night of his arrest and also to suppress his incriminating statements on the basis that they were not made pursuant to a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights. However, in his direct appeal and in his petition for review, Thomas briefed only the issue involving the deputies’ entry into his house without a warrant while following Prouse. Thus, the entry issue is the only one properly before this court. See State v. Brown, 272 Kan. 843, 844, 35 P.3d 910 (2001) (an issue which is not briefed is deemed abandoned).
> Regarding the constitutionality of the deputies’ entry into his home, Thomas argues that the arrest warrant upon which the deputies based their chase of Prouse did not authorize their entry without a search warrant into the home of a third party. Further, Thomas contends there were no exigent circumstances to support the entry.
> Thomas’ arguments raise an issue of first impression: Does the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights prohibit the entry of law enforcement officers into a home when officers are in hot pursuit of the subject of a felony arrest warrant who has fled from a public area into the house, even though the arrestee does not own or reside in the house, and even though the officers do not have a search warrant for the house? To examine this narrow issue we will look at the decisions regarding the warrant requirement and exceptions to that requirement and then examine Thomas’ arguments regarding the specific circumstances of this case.
>
> * * *
>
> B. Warrant Requirement and Exceptions
>
> * * *
>
> 1. Third Party’s House
>
> An arrest warrant, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis to enter the home of a third party. The United States Supreme Court reached this holding in Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 68 L. Ed. 2d 38, 101 S. Ct. 1642 (1981). In Steagald, a confidential informant contacted an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration, suggesting he might be able to locate Ricky Lyons, a federal fugitive wanted on drug charges. Agents found the address where they thought Lyons was located and, 2 days later, drove to the residence. Gary Steagald and Hoyt Gaultney stood outside of the house. After the agents frisked the two men and discovered that neither man was Lyons, they went to the front door. Gaultney’s wife answered the door and told the agents she was alone. The agents proceeded, without consent, into the house and searched for Lyons. Although they did not find Lyons, the agents found cocaine. They subsequently obtained a search warrant, and ultimately found 43 pounds of cocaine. Steagald was arrested on federal drug charges.
>
> The Supreme Court stated that the agents had neither consent nor exigent circumstances when they made their initial, warrantless search. 451 U.S. at 211. The Court phrased its narrow issue for consideration as “whether an arrest warrant - as opposed to a search warrant - is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant, when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.” 451 U.S. at 212. The Steagald Court recognized that different interests are protected by arrest warrants and search warrants. Arrest warrants protect individuals from unreasonable seizures; search warrants protect against the unjustified intrusion of police into one’s home. The Court found that the agents wrongly relied on Lyon’s arrest warrant to give them the legal authority to enter into a third person’s home. Thus, the third person’s privacy interests were left unprotected. 451 U.S. at 213.
>
> The Steagald Court feared that allowing officers, without consent or exigent circumstances, to enter into a third party’s residence to search for the subject of an arrest warrant “would create a significant potential for abuse” and pointed out that officers would then be able to use arrest warrants as a pretext for entering the residences of a suspect’s friends and acquaintances or as a pretext for entering residences in which police have mere suspicion, not probable cause, that illegal activity is being committed. The Court held that, under the facts of the case, the warrantless search was unconstitutional. 451 U.S. at 215-16.
>
> However, the United States Supreme Court was careful to exempt two circumstances from its holding: consent and exigent circumstances. 451 U.S. at 212. In this case, the State does not allege there was consent. Rather, the State relies upon exigent circumstances, an argument adopted by the Court of Appeals.
>
> * * *
>
> Thus, although it was not the specific issue before the Court, the Steagald decision recognizes the constitutionality of an entry into the home of a third party when officers are in pursuit of a suspect who is first approached in a public area. See 451 U.S. at 217-18.
>
> At least one court has applied the hot pursuit doctrine when the subject of an arrest warrant was pursued into the home of a third party. In United States v. Williams, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13884, 2004 WL 1637021, unpublished opinion filed July 20, 2004 (S.D.N.Y.), officers went to a third party’s apartment after receiving an anonymous tip that Rossi Graham could be found there. There was an outstanding warrant for Graham’s arrest based on his assault of a pregnant woman with a hot iron. Officers positioned themselves at both the front door and back door of the apartment. When one officer knocked at the front door and identified himself as a police officer, the police heard someone running inside the apartment. A man who resembled Graham peeked his head outside the back door, stuck it back inside, and yelled, “Oh, shit.” He shut and locked the back door. 2004 WL 1637021, at \*1.
>
> The officers then entered the apartment and detained three individuals, one of whom was Larry Williams, inside. During their protective sweep, the officers saw narcotics in plain view. Williams and the others were arrested. Although it was later discovered that the man they pursued was not Graham, the officers’ entry into the apartment was upheld. The federal district court, citing Steagald and Santana, held that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified under the “hot pursuit” doctrine. The Williams court concluded:
>
> “Because the officers’ entry into the Prince Street Apartment after the individual whom they reasonably believed to be Rossi Graham retreated into the house was justified under the doctrine of hot pursuit, the evidence seized from the Prince Street Apartment that was in plain view, will not be suppressed.” 2004 WL 1637021, at \*3.
>
> Even stronger than the situation in Williams, the deputies in this case identified the suspect. As in Williams, the deputies entered into the house to arrest the suspect and found criminal evidence in plain view.
>
> We agree with the Williams court’s analysis. Although none of the United States Supreme Court cases directly answer the issue before us, the careful carving of the hot pursuit doctrine from the holding in Steagald indicates the Court would recognize an exception to the search warrant requirement when the subject of an arrest warrant is approached by law enforcement officers in a public place and pursued into the home of a third party.
> C. Application of Hot Pursuit Doctrine
>
> Without specific discussion of the hot pursuit exception, Thomas contends there were no exigent circumstances and cites to the list of factors this court has recognized which may be considered in determining if exigent circumstances existed, including:
>
> “(1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause; (4) strong reasons to believe that the suspect is in the premises; (5) a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended and (6) the peaceful circumstances of entry.” State v. Platten, 225 Kan. 764, 770, 594 P.2d 201 (1979).
>
> The possible destruction of evidence is also a factor which may be considered. 225 Kan. at 770. Thomas, as the homeowner, contends that these six or seven factors were not met; therefore, the officers violated his constitutional rights.
>
> Although his argument is unclear, it appears that Thomas seeks a factor-by-factor analysis. Prior cases have not required such a review. See, e.g., Platten, 225 Kan. at 770. Furthermore, in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 299, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782, 87 S. Ct. 1642 (1967), the Supreme Court noted the search was “necessary to prevent the dangers that the suspect at large in the house may resist or escape.” The United States Supreme Court has recognized that hot pursuit alone justifies a warrantless intrusion into a home. See, e.g, Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85, 110 S. Ct. 1684 (1990). This court has also recognized that hot pursuit is one example of an exigent circumstance. E.g., State v. Mendez, 275 Kan. 412, 421, 66 P.3d 811 (2003).
>
> Furthermore, the Kansas cases which Thomas cites to support his contention that the deputies lacked exigent circumstances to justify entering his home in pursuit of Prouse are distinguishable. Thomas cites State v. Huff, 278 Kan. 214, 92 P.3d 604 (2004), and Platten, 225 Kan. 764, 594 P.2d 201, where this court held that the evidence did not support the officers’ warrantless entry into a defendant’s home under the auspices of exigent circumstances. Neither case involved arrest warrants nor the “hot pursuit” of the suspect into the house; both cases are distinguishable on these grounds.
> Here, the deputies had an arrest warrant for Prouse, began surveillance of the house where they reasonably believed he could be found, and then spotted Prouse as he first exited and then reentered the house. The district court found that the deputies initially intended to wait for Prouse and to arrest him outside. There is no evidence, or assertion by Thomas, that the deputies used the arrest warrant as a pretext for entering Thomas’ house or for searching it for incriminating evidence.
>
> The district court found the doctrine of hot pursuit applied and also found it was impractical to expect the officers to obtain a warrant once Prouse took refuge in Thomas’ house. The district court expressed doubt that a search warrant could have been obtained quickly at 2 o’clock in the morning. Unquestionably, if the officers had sought a search warrant, there was a “high possibility that the fugitive named in the arrest warrant [would] escape apprehension.” Steagald, 451 U.S. at 226 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). Indeed, requiring such police conduct would negate the essence of the hot pursuit doctrine. As previously observed, the chase of a suspect from the threshold of a house into the residence is considered to be “hot pursuit.” Santana, 427 U.S. at 43.
>
> Furthermore, certain facts in this particular case are important to a conclusion that the officers were justified in making a warrantless entry into a third-party residence. The initial entry and search was limited to the apprehension of Prouse, the suspect named in the arrest warrant. See State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 41, 978 P.2d 886 (1999) (lawful search extends to entire area where object of search may be found); see also United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-22, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572, 102 S. Ct. 2157 (1982) (lawful search generally extends to entire area where object of search may be found); Fisher v. Volz, 496 F.2d 333, 343 (3d Cir. 1974) (officers permitted to search only area where subject/object of warrant might hide). Thomas does not contest the officers’ quick protective sweep of the home once they discovered that Prouse was not alone. See State v. Johnson, 253 Kan. 356, 370, 856 P.2d 134 (1993) (protective sweep limited to search of premises, incident to arrest, and conducted to protect safety of officers and others; sweep narrowly confined to cursory visual inspection of places where person might hide). There is no indication that the deputies dug into drawers or looked into places where the suspect obviously could not hide.
>
> In addition, the evidence pertaining to the methamphetamine lab was in plain view as the deputies pursued Prouse and made a protective sweep of the residence. It is clear that any evidence seized in plain view must be located in places lawfully accessible to officers. See State v. Miller, 222 Kan. 405, 413, 565 P.2d 228 (1977) (if officers are lawfully within premises, they may seize evidence in plain view); State v. Huff, 220 Kan. 162, 166, 551 P.2d 880 (1976) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 91 S. Ct. 2022 [1971]) (recognizing that plain view alone does not justify warrantless seizure of evidence); State v. Crouch, 192 Kan. 602, 606, 389 P.2d 824 (1964) (officers could seize government property, illegally possessed by defendant in plain view, upon authorized entry of premises). The strong smell of anhydrous ammonia was prevalent throughout the house, and various items consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine sat in plain view in the kitchen area.
_State v. Thomas_, 124 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2005)
---
### Author:  [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/9 "2009-01-15T17:03:44Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> It’s not at all obvious to me. Today, if a police officer does lousy paperwork and executes a search warrant on 19 main st instead of 91 main st, nothing happens to him\*, the only effect is that the search is invalidated. Tell the officer that he’s on the hook for trespassing, breaking and entering, a demotion/dismissal from the force, or a $1,000 fine, I’d suspect that he would be a lot more interested in being damn sure he’s got the right house number.
>
> \*Maybe there’s some internal performance measurement that he’d get dinged on, but clearly there is no direct legal consequence.
What makes you so sure none of those things happen now? The exclusionary rule isn’t trying to punish law enforcement, it’s trying to protect the civil liberties of people accused of crimes.
Imagine you have someone in custody who you think raped a 6 year old boy. He wants to talk to a lawyer. Two options - you can deny him access to counsel and not give him any food or water for 30 hours until he confesses, then pay a $1000 fine, or you can deny him access to counsel and not give him any food or water for 30 hours until he confesses and have the confession ruled inadmissible. Which is more likely to keep law enforcement from violating his rights?
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/10 "2009-01-15T17:19:28Z")
In what percentage of cases does the exclusionary rule factor? If you watch the police procedural shows you see it happen all the time, but in real life how often is evidence really excluded, and in what percentage of the cases does the district attorney obtain a conviction regardless?
---
### Author:  [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/11 "2009-01-15T17:26:00Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#):
>
> Two options - you can deny him access to counsel and not give him any food or water for 30 hours until he confesses, then pay a $1000 fine, or you can deny him access to counsel and not give him any food or water for 30 hours until he confesses and have the confession ruled inadmissible. Which is more likely to keep law enforcement from violating his rights?
Probably the inadmissibility. Of course if the punishment was going on trial for kidnapping (15yrs to life in prison, see OJ Simpson) instead of a $1000 fine, I’d bet the punishment would be more effective than evidence inadmissibility.
Save the $1000 fine for an illegal search of someone’s trunk.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/12 "2009-01-15T17:41:09Z")
I’ve argued the same point I think the OP is making.
> [@](#):
>
> The exclusion of illegally-obtained evidence is to prevent the slippery slope. For every gut feeling a cop has and is right – for which the PD would probably happily pay just a fine – you’d have (dozens? hundreds? two? one is too many, IMO) of people who effectively have their homes broken into by the police. That, as they say, would be a bad thing.
The problem with the logic of inadmissability is that there would be no consequence in any of those cases where the police broke into someone’s house on a gut feeling - unless the gut feeling was right. If they break into your house and find nothing, there’s no evidence to be made inadmissable, so no consequence. It’s only when they break into your house and find evidence of a crime that there’s the possibility of consequences.
So if you had a really incompetent police force and they had terrible instincts, they’d break into hundreds of houses without ever finding any evidence of any crimes. There’d be no consequences from their activities so there’d be no reason to stop their activities. Or, less benignly, suppose you have a police department that targets minority homes. They regularly break into minority owned homes to “look for evidence”. They never find any so there’s never anything to be ruled inadmissable. But they don’t care - the purpose of their break-ins was to harass the homeowners not to solve any actual crimes.
Suppose instead the police department was fined a thousand dollars every time it broke into a house without the proper authorization. Now the police commissioner has a real incentive to cut down on improper searchs. He’s not going to let the incompetents follow their defective instincts or let the bigots harass minorities because he’s signing the checks.
---
### Author:  [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/13 "2009-01-15T19:31:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Suppose instead the police department was fined a thousand dollars every time it broke into a house without the proper authorization. Now the police commissioner has a real incentive to cut down on improper searchs. He’s not going to let the incompetents follow their defective instincts or let the bigots harass minorities because he’s signing the checks.
People already have the right to sue for millions of dollars for violations of their civil rights. It’s way more effective than a fine. Neither approach actually protects the accused from having their rights abridged by the police. Why focus on trying to punish the police when the real goal is to protect individual citizens’ constitutional rights?
---
### Author:  [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/14 "2009-01-15T19:33:20Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#):
>
> Probably the inadmissibility. Of course if the punishment was going on trial for kidnapping (15yrs to life in prison, see OJ Simpson) instead of a $1000 fine, I’d bet the punishment would be more effective than evidence inadmissibility.
>
> Save the $1000 fine for an illegal search of someone’s trunk.
What if you were pretty sure a jury wouldn’t convict you of “kidnapping” the child rapist who is in jail because of you?
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/15 "2009-01-15T19:59:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> People already have the right to sue for millions of dollars for violations of their civil rights. It’s way more effective than a fine. Neither approach actually protects the accused from having their rights abridged by the police. Why focus on trying to punish the police when the real goal is to protect individual citizens’ constitutional rights?
The purpose of all these approaches is to prevent the police from performing illegal searches. My belief is that a police officer is going to be more motivated by his boss telling him _“If I have to pay one more fine out of our department’s budget I’m going to put you on traffic patrol for a year”_ then he would be by his boss saying _“The DA’s mad because we lost that case. He says it’s your fault because the heroin was ruled inadmissable. I figure he should blame that liberal judge instead of blaming a good cop who’s just trying to take some scum off the streets. But anyway, I’m supposed to reprimanded you. Consider your wrist slapped.”_
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/16 "2009-01-15T21:44:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> _“The DA’s mad because we lost that case. He says it’s your fault because the heroin was ruled inadmissable. I figure he should blame that liberal judge instead of blaming a good cop who’s just trying to take some scum off the streets. But anyway, I’m supposed to reprimanded you. Consider your wrist slapped.”_
The public gets pretty mad when the police screw up badly.
---
### Author:  [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/17 "2009-01-15T21:59:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> The purpose of all these approaches is to prevent the police from performing illegal searches. My belief is that a police officer is going to be more motivated by his boss telling him _“If I have to pay one more fine out of our department’s budget I’m going to put you on traffic patrol for a year”_ then he would be by his boss saying _“The DA’s mad because we lost that case. He says it’s your fault because the heroin was ruled inadmissable. I figure he should blame that liberal judge instead of blaming a good cop who’s just trying to take some scum off the streets. But anyway, I’m supposed to reprimanded you. Consider your wrist slapped.”_
I think you have a very fanciful idea of how the situation would be handled. Do you think all cops are so stupid that they’d blame the judge rather than have their own understanding of the law? It’s not some new principle being adopted in the last 20 years, it’s been this way for hundreds of years. Personally, I suspect any police would have a better understanding of the rules of evidence than your average Law and Order viewer, though they may lack the nuance of a lawyer. It’s not like police put themselves at risk every day just to get a pay check and have no concern for justice. They want to see criminals convicted too.
The idea that the top guys would be more concerned with a few bills than with their conviction rate being abysmal seems utterly absurd to me. Money is just money, but a bunch of criminals getting off due to shoddy police work gets elected officials in real trouble with their constituents.
You also left out the part where the captain says “Also, you and the city are both being sued for $8.4 million, you better call your FOP lawyer. Consider yourself wrist slapped.”
---
### Author:  [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/18 "2009-01-15T22:16:10Z")
The Exclusionary Rule is deeply stupid and shitty for the reasons the OP suggests. Unfortunately, would society really accept a rule which imprisoned police officers for their illegal searches? Please note in formulating your answer the popularity of the television show “24.”
The Exclusionary Rule is perhaps the worst possible legal deterrent of illegal police conduct we have – other than just asking cops nicely not to violate the Constitution all the time. Unfortunately, those are the only two feasible options.
–Cliffy
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/19 "2009-01-15T22:31:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I think you have a very fanciful idea of how the situation would be handled. Do you think all cops are so stupid that they’d blame the judge rather than have their own understanding of the law? It’s not some new principle being adopted in the last 20 years, it’s been this way for hundreds of years. Personally, I suspect any police would have a better understanding of the rules of evidence than your average Law and Order viewer, though they may lack the nuance of a lawyer. It’s not like police put themselves at risk every day just to get a pay check and have no concern for justice. They want to see criminals convicted too.
>
> The idea that the top guys would be more concerned with a few bills than with their conviction rate being abysmal seems utterly absurd to me. Money is just money, but a bunch of criminals getting off due to shoddy police work gets elected officials in real trouble with their constituents.
What about my other point? What about cops who have no concern about any theoretical evidence but just enter homes illegally to harass people? They never have any evidence ruled inadmissable. Why do they get to search illegally without any consequences?
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426/20 "2009-01-15T22:47:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Why do they get to search illegally without any consequences?
What makes you think there wouldn’t be consequences?
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-the-exclusionary-rule/481426.md?page=2)