| Abstrakt: |
For the modern Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is all about bad cops. Per the Court, the rule works exclusively by deterring those officers, who by dint of malice, recklessness, or negligence are otherwise prone to Fourth Amendment intrusions. That sounds reasonable. However, the exclusionary rule's deterrent effect on bad cops is nothing more than hopeful conjecture; empirical support is lacking and economic models disappoint. This is not to say the exclusionary rule doesn't "work". The exclusionary rule works just fine in promoting constitutional policing in America; it just doesn't work the way the modern Court insists it must. What matters is not the exclusionary rule's impact on a small subset of bad cops. What matters is the rule's impact on all the good cops out there; i.e., that broad majority of police who go to work every day intending to respect Fourth Amendment boundaries. To stay on the right side of those boundaries, good cops need two tools: Fourth Amendment rules of engagement and training in how to apply those rules in the field. The exclusionary rule, working in perhaps unexpected ways, provides both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
