<<  <  >  >>

Page 40

60. United States v. Foster, 100 F.3d 846, 848 n. 1

(1996).

61. Ibid. at 850-51 nn. 5, 6.

62. Quoted in ibid. at 847.  For another example of this

type of executive misbehavior, see United States v.

Medlin, 842 F.2d 1194 (1988).

63. As Justice Frank Murphy noted in Wolf at 42, "Self-

scrutiny is a lofty ideal, but its exaltation reaches new

heights if we expect a District Attorney to prosecute him-

self or his associates for well-meaning violations of the

search and seizure clause during a raid the District

Attorney or his associates have ordered."  (Murphy, J.,

dissenting).  See also Irvine at 137 (opinion of Jackson,

J.).

64. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 73, in The

Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961),

p. 442.

65. James Madison, Federalist no. 51, in The Federalist

Papers, pp. 321-22.

66. People v. Cahan, 282 P.2d 905, 912 (1955).

67. See Mapp at 655-57; Olmstead v. United States, 277

U.S. 438, 462-63 (1928); and Weeks.

68. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).  In

1971 Chief Justice Warren Burger invited Congress to abro-

gate the exclusionary rule, stating, "I see no insuperable

obstacle to the elimination of the [exclusionary rule] if

Congress would provide some meaningful and effective remedy

against unlawful conduct by government officials."  Bivens

v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 421

(1971) (Burger, C.J., dissenting).  In 1979 (then) Justice

William Rehnquist invited the solicitor general to submit

written arguments on the question of "whether, and to what

extent, the so-called 'exclusionary rule' of Weeks v.

United States, should be retained."  California v.

Minjares, 443 U.S. 916 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting

from the denial of stay).

69. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal

Policy, "Report to the Attorney General on the Search and

Seizure Exclusionary Rule," February 26, 1986, reprinted in

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 22 (1989):

581.