The Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rule

The fourth amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor Corporativo: Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 1989
En:Año: 1989
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866313223
003 DE-627
005 20250127054849.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231019s1989 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866313223 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866313223 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
110 2 |a Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rule 
264 1 |c 1989 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The fourth amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. This guaranty is not self-executing, however, and the courts and criminal justice systems in this country have long been bedeviled by questions concerning appropriate methods of ensuring its observance. As a result of the Supreme Court's decisions in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio, the method principally relied upon today is a judicially created rule excluding from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights. The search and seizure exclusionary rule is subject to a number of well-founded criticisms. First, the rule has no support in the original intent or meaning of the Framers of the Constitution. Second, the validity of the rule's deterrence rationale has yet to be demonstrated. Third, among its other drawbacks, the rule impairs significantly the search for truth in criminal justice. Finally, alternative methods for deterring and redressing fourth amendment violations exist or could be created, and those alternatives would be more effective and less costly than the exclusionary rule 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/232711853.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4392956865 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866313223 
LOK |0 005 20231019043638 
LOK |0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE69339208 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw