However,
the exclusionary rule in some states goes beyond the Fourth Amendment.
Not exact matches
Even with the second amendment and widespread gun ownership, elimination of the
exclusionary rule in the United
States would allow police a much greater ability to control crime.
The
State of New Jersey sought review
in this Court, first arguing that the
exclusionary rule is wholly inapplicable to searches conducted by school officials, and then contending that the Fourth Amendment itself provides no protection at all to the student's privacy.
But, if your client is effectively «deputized» or becomes a «de facto» agent of the
state who is called up to be a member of a posse for the police, for example, by using an agreed symbol such as shining a light with a symbol on it on some clouds, at that point, with respect to that matter, the 4th Amendment
exclusionary rule and Miranda probably do apply to evidence that your client obtains, and exclusion of that kind of evidence could make prosecution much more difficult, unless the prosecution can successfully make an argument that the other evidence that the illegally obtained evidence leads them to is not «fruit of the poisonous tree» because it would have inevitably been discovered
in due course using only the legally obtained evidence.
He notes, however, that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,
in a separate opinion,
states,» [T] he continued operation of the
exclusionary rule, as settled and defined by our precedents, is not
in doubt.»
Opinion analysis: When a statutory
exclusionary rule «makes sense» SCOTUSblog, May 15, 2018 The Supreme Court's brisk opinion
in Dahda v. United
States awarded the government yet another
exclusionary rule victory, this time
in the context of a statutory provision rooted
in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The Supreme Court endorsed a good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule in United
States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).