<<  <  >  >>

Page 2

Introduction and Background

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be

seized.

Like the other amendments that constitute the Bill of

Rights, the Fourth Amendment was written and ratified to

protect the citizenry against overweening government.  But

none of those amendments is self-enforcing.  Much of the

modern debate surrounding enforcement of the Fourth Amend-

ment has focused on the so-called exclusionary rule--on

whether it is wise or constitutionally necessary.  Under

that rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth

Amendment is ordinarily inadmissible in a criminal trial.

A simple example will illustrate how the exclusionary

rule can affect a criminal investigation.  If a policeman

got a tip that a local cab driver, Tom Smith, was

moonlighting as a cat burglar, the officer might launch an

investigation and search for evidence that would enable

him to arrest and prosecute Smith.  But if the policeman

decided that the fastest way to find evidence was to break

into Smith's home without a search warrant, his effort

would be for naught.  Even if the police officer discov-

ered seven stolen TV sets in Smith's living room, the case

would almost certainly be thrown out of court--at least

under current law.  It would be thrown out because Smith's

attorney could have the trial judge bar the admission of

the stolen goods as evidence since it was obtained through

an illegal search.  And without that illegally obtained

evidence, the district attorney would probably be unable

to successfully prosecute a case of theft.

The exclusionary rule is very controversial.

Conservatives often oppose the rule as not grounded in the

Constitution, not a deterrent to police misconduct, and

not helpful in the search for truth in criminal proceed-

ings.  They believe there are more sensible ways to handle

abuses by law enforcement personnel.  Liberals, on the

other hand, have generally defended the exclusionary rule,

both as an appropriate judicial remedy for Fourth

Amendment violations and because the rule can operate to

deter police misconduct.  This study will conclude that