Is the Supreme Court About to Kill Off the Exclusionary Rule?

[deminks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon4.html

In 1957, the Cleveland police showed up at Dollree Mapp’s home looking for a bombing suspect. Ms. Mapp would not let them in without a search warrant, but they entered anyway. The police did not find the bomber, but they came across a trunk containing “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures.

Ms. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, even though the evidence was taken without a warrant. She was tried in state court, like the overwhelming majority of criminal defendants. So it did her no good that federal courts had applied the so-called “exclusionary rule” since 1914 to bar the use of illegally seized evidence.

In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court reversed Ms. Mapp’s conviction and adopted the exclusionary rule as a national standard. The court acknowledged that the rule might let some criminals go free, but it underscored that it was more important to compel the nation’s police forces to obey the law.

The court carved out exceptions over the years, but the basic rule laid down in Mapp has endured for nearly five decades. Now, Chief Justice John Roberts’s conservative majority on the Supreme Court is working to undo the exclusionary rule in a more fundamental way. It’s been a longstanding interest of Mr. Roberts’s. As a young Reagan administration lawyer, he worked on what he described in a memo as a “campaign to amend or abolish” the rule.

[aquart]

1. I'm sure that's his plan.

I would be thrilled if we could use his broken rule to nail his ass. But we all have our dreams.

[elleng]

3. Right. At least Justice Ginsberg will be around,

and may help keep the decision very narrow.

[tomp]

6. we pray. nt

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[olegramps]

4. My dream is to see the Supreme Court justices terms limited to ten years.

[ronatchig]

5. Mine would be

the impeachment and conviction of the remaining Bush selection committee, and then the vacating of the Alito- Roberts nominations due to the illegality of the impostor in chief.

Oh and while we're at it how about some investigation of the Federalist cabal.:nopity:

[reggie the dog]

7. so the cops could just bust in anywhere without a warrant then???

how would this work?

I got found innocent for cannabis possession, a ten year charge, due to illegal search and seizure.

[elleng]

8. Congrats.

I suspect it will be a very narrow decision, that is, only in certain situations wojulod sudch evidence be accepted. People really have to read sup.ct decisions to understand full meaning of what the Court does; its RARELY simple as stated by media.