Forgotten Points in the "Exclusionary Rule" Debate

Authors

James Boyd White, The University of ChicagoFollow

Abstract

Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of evidence so obtained.

Recommended Citation

James B. White, Forgotten Points in the "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 1273 (1983).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol81/iss5/3