Footnotes (258)



Seven Theses in Grudging Defense of the Exclusionary Rule

Lawrence Rosenthal

Chapman University - School of Law

March 19, 2013

10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 523 (2013)
Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 13-6

Much has been written about the rule that prevents the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. The quantity of the literature, however, threatens to obscure important areas of emerging agreement. This paper, part of a symposium in the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law to appear for the 100th anniversary of Weeks v. United States, presents seven theses. The first four enjoy widespread support, with considerable justification: 1) the exclusionary rule is not constitutionally required; 2) history does not resolve the propriety of the exclusionary rule; 3) the Fourth Amendment requires an effective deterrent to unreasonable search and seizure; and 4) the exclusionary rule offers some meaningful deterrence of unreasonable search and seizure because of the political costs of exclusion. Although the remaining theses are somewhat more controversial, the general acceptance of the first four and, in particular, the recognition that exclusionary imposes political rather than economic costs, I will contend, powerfully suggests the soundness of the final three: 5) exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not invariably required to preserve its deterrent efficacy; 6) exclusion is sometimes required to achieve constitutionally sufficient deterrence even in the absence of culpable misconduct; and 7) alternatives to exclusion are of uncertain efficacy because they rest on problematic theories of deterrence. Collectively, the seven theses amount to a grudging defense of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule has many defects, but there are great difficulties identifying a superior alternative.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 45

Keywords: Exclusionary Rule, Search and Seizure, Fourth Amendment, Weeks v. United States, Mapp v. Ohio, Herring v. United States, Davis v. United States

JEL Classification: K14

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: March 19, 2013 ; Last revised: April 30, 2013

Suggested Citation

Rosenthal, Lawrence, Seven Theses in Grudging Defense of the Exclusionary Rule (March 19, 2013). 10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 523 (2013); Chapman University Law Research Paper No. 13-6. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2235848

Contact Information

Lawrence Rosenthal (Contact Author)
Chapman University - School of Law ( email )
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866-1099
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 453
Downloads: 64
Download Rank: 198,527
Footnotes:  258
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime
By Glenn Reynolds

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.406 seconds