Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Michigan Law School

Criminal Procedure

Journal

Exclusionary rule

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

The Emerging International Consensus As To Criminal Procedure Rules, Craig M. Bradley Jan 1993

The Emerging International Consensus As To Criminal Procedure Rules, Craig M. Bradley

Michigan Journal of International Law

This article will demonstrate that these general claims, as well as certain observations about specific countries, were, with one significant exception, substantially wrong when they were written. More importantly, due to significant developments in several countries in the years since those reports came out, they are even more wrong now. That is, not only have the U.S. concepts of pre-interrogation warnings to suspects, a search warrant requirement, and the use of an exclusionary remedy to deter police misconduct been widely adopted, but in many cases other countries have gone beyond the U.S. requirements.


The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy Jun 1989

The Search And Seizure Exclusionary Rule, Department Of Justice Office Of Legal Policy

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

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 …


Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White Apr 1983

Forgotten Points In The "Exclusionary Rule" Debate, James Boyd White

Michigan Law Review

Most contemporary discussions of the "exclusionary rule" assume or assert that this "rule" is not part of the fourth amendment, nor required by its terms, but is rather a judicial "remedy" that was fashioned to protect those rights (against unreasonable search and seizure) that actually are granted by the fourth amendment. The protection is said to work by "deterring" official violations; this is, however, an odd use of the word, for the rule does not punish violations but merely deprives the government of some of the benefits that might ensue from them, namely the use in the criminal case of …


Scientific Investigation And Defendants' Rights, B. J. George Jr. Nov 1958

Scientific Investigation And Defendants' Rights, B. J. George Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Advances in science, medicine and industry have made much of the world a more pleasant place in which to live. In general more men are living a physically more satisfying life in more comfortable surroundings than preceding generations. But with this has come a parallel increase in criminality to the point that the term "crime wave" is heard with increasing frequency. Many crimes are facilitated in their commission by adaption or application of new scientific discoveries by criminal elements. A natural consequence is that already overburdened police departments turn as quickly as is financially possible to new scientific techniques in …


Constitutional Law-Due Process Of Law-Freedom From Unreasonable Search And Seizure-The Admissibility Of Illegally Seized Evidence, Bernard Goldstone S.Ed. Nov 1949

Constitutional Law-Due Process Of Law-Freedom From Unreasonable Search And Seizure-The Admissibility Of Illegally Seized Evidence, Bernard Goldstone S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Local police officers entered the private office of petitioner, a practising physician, without a warrant and seized his private books and records. As a result of the information thus obtained, petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to perform an abortion. Petitioner claimed that his constitutional rights were invaded contending that due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment includes freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and prevents the admission of illegally seized evidence, but this was denied by the Supreme Court of Colorado and the conviction was affirmed. On certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, held, affirmed, …