So, I didn't read through the article the whole way or look into the case, so this is to be taken as not a hugely informed opinion:
I think exclusionary rule protections are a good thing. However the exclusionary rule != the Fourth Amendment. IIRC, the constitution is completely silent on what an 'unreasonable search or seizure' is, and also what to do with evidence obtained in one.
My main point being: the exclusionary rule was a check that was just sort of made up by the Supreme Court. It's entirely in their legal authority to take it away. I mean this is the body that told us that Separate = Equal [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] until actually Separate != Equal [347 U.S. 483 (1954)].
Comments 2
Reply
I think exclusionary rule protections are a good thing. However the exclusionary rule != the Fourth Amendment. IIRC, the constitution is completely silent on what an 'unreasonable search or seizure' is, and also what to do with evidence obtained in one.
My main point being: the exclusionary rule was a check that was just sort of made up by the Supreme Court. It's entirely in their legal authority to take it away. I mean this is the body that told us that Separate = Equal [163 U.S. 537 (1896)] until actually Separate != Equal [347 U.S. 483 (1954)].
Reply
Leave a comment