Forgotten Points in the "Exclusionary Rule" Debate

White, James Boyd

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 81

First Page: 1273

Year: 1983

Bluebook Citation: 81 MICH. L. REV. 1273 (1983)

Author: James Boyd White: all 32 publications


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.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.