Suppression of Evidence

Should evidence obtained as a result of police misconduct, or in violation of the accused's constitutional rights, be suppressed at trial?

As any watcher of Law & Order probably knows, as a general matter, under the exclusionary rule, fruit from the poisonous tree is no good at trial. (Mapp v. Ohio made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states.)

But in its 2008 Herring v. United States decision, the current Supreme Court seems to be heading towards saying... nuh-uh, not anymore.

Should the exclusionary rule stand or fall? (Not as a constitutional matter. Just as a policy matter.)

I feel like I ought to go with the Lefties on this one, but... I think I might actually agree with the Roberts crowd. Yes, true, the exclusionary rule currently acts as a powerful check on police power - holding them to respect 4th and 5th Amendment rights during the course of investigations. But oughtn't there be other ways to make the 4th/5th Amendments enforceable? Robertscalia points to the availability of civil suits against police officers as a deterrent, for example.

Cases where the police bust in and find the bloody knife with the accused's fingerprints, but then the evidence is excluded from trial because of police misconduct....... they just don't sit well with me. The evidence is there.

Maybe I have too much faith in the police. What do you think? I think some of my Lefty classmates would be aghast...

[XY Comment]: That is really interesting. Certainly seems like there could be room to have this judged case by case to allow the judge to determine if the police acted inappropriately and whether the evidence should be thrown out. You'd be worried with this type of discretion if the judicial system were weak or dependent on the law enforcement system. That doesn't generally seem to be the case in the US, so I have no problem giving up the current law.