is the exclusionary rule an illogical or unnatural interpreta

8/12/2019 Is the Exclusionary Rule an Illogical or Unnatural Interpreta

1/20

University of Michigan Law School

University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository

Articles Faculty Scholarship

1978

Is the Exclusionary Rule an 'Illogical' or 'Unnatural'Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment?

Yale KamisarUniversity of Michigan Law School, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: hp://repository.law.umich.edu/articles

Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourteenth AmendmentCommons, Fourth Amendment Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons

Tis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has

been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more

information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationKamisar, Yale. "Is the Exclusionary Rule an 'Illogical' or 'Unnatural' Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment?" Judicature 62 (1978):66-84.
http://repository.law.umich.edu/?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/articles?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/faculty_scholarship?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/articles?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1073?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/601?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1116?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1116?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1180?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/854?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPagesmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/854?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1180?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1116?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1116?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/601?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1073?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/articles?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/faculty_scholarship?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/articles?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://repository.law.umich.edu/?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Farticles%2F632&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/20

HeinOnline -- 62 Judicature 66 1978-1979


3/20

note: Over the years, critics of therule have called it, among other

an illogical, irrational, and un-interpretation of the Fourth and

Amendments.fall for example, U.S. Court of Ap-Judge Malcolm Wilkey, writing in the

Street Journal, said the rule is notby the Constitution The exclu-

rule is a judge-made rule of evidencebars 'the use of evidence secured

an illegal search and seizure.'...only excuse offered for this irrationalis that there is 'no effective alternative'

the police obey the law.an effort to explore this controversial

further, Judicature invited Judgeand a defender of the rule, Yale

to express their views. Judge Wil-will explain his opposition and suggestto the rule in a later issue.

ore than 50 years have passed sincethe Supreme Court decided the Weeksbarring the use in federal prosecutions

evidence obtained in violation of theAmendment, and the Silverthorne

2 invoking what has come to be knownthe fruit of the poisonous tree doc-

3 The justices who decided those casesI think, be quite surprised to learn

some day the value of the exclusionarywould be measured by and the very

of the rule might depend on an empiri-evaluation of its efficacy in deterringmisconduct.4

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251385 (1920)Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939),

to allow the prosecution to avoid an inquiryits use of information gained by illegal wiretap-first used the phrase fruit of the poisonous tree.generally Pitler, 'The Fruit of the Poisonous Tredand Shepardized, 56 CALIF. L. REV. 579Space does not permit an extensive evaluation of

empirical studies of the exclusionary rule's(if any) on police behavior. But see Does the

rule affect police behavior? on page 70 ofissue.

These justices were engaged in a lessambitious venture, albeit a most importantone. They were interpreting the FourthAmendment as best they could. As they sawit, the rule-now known as the federal exclu-sionary rule-rested on a principled basisrather than an empirical proposition. 5

The dissenters in United States v Caland-ra were, I think, plainly right when theymaintained that uppermost in the minds ofthe framers of the [exclusionary] rule wasnot the rule's possible deterrent effect, but the twin goals of enabling the judiciary toavoid the taint of partnership in officiallawlessness and of assuring the people [that]the government would not profit from itslawless behavior, thus minimizing the riskof seriously undermining popular trust ingovernment.''6 The main purpose of thisarticle, then, is to trace, explain and justifythe original grounding of the exclusionaryrule-what has come to be known as theimperative of judicial intergrity.he eeks opinion

As Professor Francis Allen recently remind-ed us, the Weeks opinion contains no lan-guage that expressly justifies the rule byreference to a supposed deterrent effect on

5. Cf Allen, The Judicial Quest for Penal Justice:The Warren Court and the Criminal Cases, 1975 U.ILL.L.F. 518, 536-37 (pointing out that, unlike theCourt's understanding in the formative phases of theexclusionary rule's history, in recent years the deterrentfunction has prevailed as its predominant justification,and that until the rule rests on [returns to?] a princi-pled basis rather than an empirical proposition, Mapp will remain in a state of unstable equilibrium ).

6. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 388, 3571974) (Brennan, J., joined by Douglas and Marshall,JJ., dissenting). Calandraheld that a grand jury witnessmay not refuse to answer questions on the ground thatthey are based on evidence obtained from him byviolating the Fourth Amendment. See also,Schrock andWelsh, Up From Calandra:The Exclusionary Rule asConstitutional Requiremen4 59 MINN L. REV. 251(1974).

7. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960)(Stewart, J.) (overturning the silver platter doctrine),quoted with approval in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643,656 (1961) (Clark, J.) (imposing the exclusionary rule asto unconstitutionally seized materials on state courts asa matter of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process). Seealso United States v. Calandra, supra n. 6.



4/20

police officials. Indeed, in the UnitedStates Supreme Court, some 35 years were topass, as Professor Robert McKay has noted,before Wolf v Coloradoa introduced thenotion of deterrence of official illegality tothe debate concerning the wisdom of theexclusionary rule. oAs the Weeks justices saw it, if a courtcould not sanction a search or seizurebefore the event-because, for example, thepolice lacked sufficient cause to make thesearch or were unable to describe the item(s)they sought with the requisite particular-ity then a court could not, or at least shouldnot, affirm or sanction the search orseizure after the event.

The courts, after all, are the specific ad-dressees of the constitutional command thatno Warrants shall issue, but upon certainprescribed conditions. If not even an orderof court would have justified the policeaction, as it would not have had in Weeksthen much less was it within [the officers']authority to proceed on their ow to bringfurther proof [of guilt] to' the aid of theGovernment. And if the government'sagents did proceed on their own, withoutsanction of law, then the governmentshould not be permitted to use what theiragents obtained. The government whoseagents violated the Constitution should bein no better position than the governmentwhose agents obeyed it; the efforts of thecourts and their officials to bring the guiltyto punishment are not to be aided by thesacrifice of [Fourth Amendment] princi-ples. Is any of this really so hard to follow?

Since so many commentators lately haveemphasized the efficacy (or inefficacy) of theexclusionary rule in preventing illegalsearches and seizures, it may be profitableto take a fresh look at the key passages in theold Weeks case: he tendency of those who execute the crimi-nal laws [to] obtain convictions by means ofunlawful seizures hould find no sanction in

8. Id t 536 n 0.9. 338 U.S. 25 (1949), overruled, Mapp v. Ohio, 367U.S. 643 (1961).10. McKay, Mapp v Ohio The Exclusionary Ruleand the Right of Privacy 15 ARIzoNA L. REV. 327, 330(1973).11. See notes 5, 6 and 7 supra.

68 Judicature/Volume 62 Number 2/August 1978

the judgments of the courts which are charged atall times with the support of the Constitution andto which people of all conditions have a right toappeal for the maintenance of such fundamentalrights. The efforts of the courts and their officials

to bring the guilty to punishment are not tobe aided by the sacrifice of [Fourth Amendment]principles The United States Marshall actedwithout sanction of law . and under color ofhis office undertook to make a seizure of privatepapers in direct violation of the constitutionalprohibition against such action To sanctionsuch proceedings would be to affirm by judicialdecision a manifest neglect if not an open defi-ance of the prohibitions of the Constitution,intended for the protection of the people againstsuch unauthorized action.1 2 atifyingillegal searchesAlthough the Fourth Amendment consti-tutes a guarantee against unreasonablesearches and seizures, it does not, of course,explicitly state what the consequences of aviolation of the guarantee should be. This specific of the Bill of Rights turns out, asis so often the case,' 3 not to be specific aboutthe issue which confronted the Weeks Courtand is the subject of today's debate.

This only means that here as elsewhere-almost everywhere-the Court cannot es-cape the demands of judging or of making ifficult appraisals. ' 14 But what iswrong with the Weeks Court's appraisal?Does its reading of the Fourth Amendmentdo violence to the language or purpose of theguarantee against unreasonable search andseizure? Does its interpretation of this con-stitutional provision require an active imagi-nation? Is the interpretation strained, illogi-cal or implausible?

It is plain that Holmes and Brandeisthought not. In the Silverthome case,Holmes, joined by Brandeis and five otherjustices, observed:The essence of a provision forbidding the acqui-sition of evidence in a certain way is that not

12. 232 U.S. at 392-94.13. See e.g. Friendly, The Bill of Rights as a Codeof CriminalProcedure 53 CALIF. L. REV. 929,937,954(1965); Kadish, Methodology and Criteria n Due Pro-cess Adjudication-A Survey and Criticism 66 YALEL.J. 319, 337-39 (1957); Wechsler, Toward NeutralPrinciplesof ConstitutionalLaw 73 HARv. L. REV. 1,17-18 (1959).14. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515 (1973)(Goldberg, J.). See also Friendly, supran 13 at 937-38.



5/20

If the governmentbecomes lawbreaker,it breeds contempt

for law.-Justice Louis Brandeis

evidence so acquired shall not be usedthe Court but that it shall not be used atOf course this does not mean that the factsbecome sacred and inaccessible. Ifof them is gained from an indepen-source, they may be proved like any others,the knowledge gained by the government'swrong cannot be used by it in the way5

lmstead case 16 involved two ques-both answered in the negative by a 5-41) Are telephone messages within

protection against unreasonable searchseizure? (2) Even if they are not, shouldevidence nevertheless be excluded be-the federal agents who tapped thethereby violated a state statute?

second issue, Chief Justice Wil-Taft, writing for the majority, did not

the Weeks rule, but insisted thatexclusion of evidence should be con-to cases [such as eeks] where rightsthe Constitutionwould be violated by

it. '17 In dissent, Holmes andargued that apart from the Consti-

the government ought not to use evi-obtained and only obtainable by aact. ' 8 Their arguments as to whyexclusionary rule should apply to illegal,

as unconstitutional, police action arerestatements, although more fa-

and most eloquent ones, of the reason-in Weeks.

Holmes: 19government] pays its officers for having

by crime, I do not see why it mayas well pay them for getting it in the sameand I can attach no importance to protesta-251 U.S. at 392.Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 1928).Id. at 468.Id at 469-70 (dissenting opinion).Id. at 470-71 (dissenting opinion).

tions of disapproval if it knowingly accepts andpays and announces that in the future it will payfor the fruits. We have to choose, and for my partI think it a less evil that some criminals shouldescape than that the government would play anignoble part.For those who agree with me, no distinctioncan be taken between the government as prosecu-tion and the government as judge. If the existingcode does not permit district attorneys to have ahand in such dirty business it does not permit thejudge to allow such inequities to succeed .... Iam aware of the often repeated statement that in acriminal proceeding the court will not take noticeof the manner in which papers offered in evi-dence have been obtained. But that somewhatrudimentary mode of disposing of the questionhas been overthrown by Weeks [and] the reasonfor excluding evidence obtained by violating theConstitution seems to me logically to lead toexcluding evidence obtained by a crime of theofficers of the law.Then Brandeis :20

When these unlawful acts were committed, theywere crimes only of the officers individually. Thegovernment was innocent, in legal contempla-tion; for no federal official is authorized to com-mit a crime on its behalf. When the government,having full knowledge, sought ... to avail itselfof the fruits of these acts in order to accomplishits own ends, it assumed moral responsibility forthe officers' crimes .... And if this court shouldpermit the government by means of its officers'crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing thedefendant, there would seem to be present all theelements of a ratification....

Will this court by sustaining the judgmentbelow sanction such conduct on the part of theExecutive?... The Court's aid is denied in order tomaintain respect for law; in order to promoteconfidence in the administration of justice; inorder to preserve the judicial process fromcontamination....Decency, security and liberty alike demandthat government officials shall be subjected to thesame rules of conduct that are commands to thecitizen. In a government of laws, existence of thegovernment will be imperilled if it fails to ob-serve the law scrupulously. Our government isthe potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good orfor ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.Crime is contagious. If the government becomesa lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it in-

vites every man to become a law unto himself; itinvites anarchy.Police reaction to appI never fully appreciated the force of the

20. Id. at 483-85 (dissenting opinion).



6/20

Weeks opinion, and the Holmes-Brandeisdissents in Olmstead, until some 15 yearsago when an incident occurred in Minnesotawhere I was then teaching. It helped me seethe implications of the rule more clearly.Until 1961, the Minnesota courts, as wellas the courts of about half the states, hadpermitted the use of unconstitutionallyseized evidence. But when the Court decid-ed Mapp v Ohio in 196 1,21 and imposed theexclusionary rule on Minnesota and other admissibility states as a matter of federalconstitutional law, it caused much grum-

bling in police ranks.This led Minnesota's young attorney gen-

eral, Walter Mondale, to remind the policethat the language of the Fourth Amend-ment is identical to the [search and seizureprovision] of the Minnesota State Consti-tution and that Mapp did not alter oneword of either the state or national constitu-tions. 22 The Mapp case, stressed Mondale,had not reduce[d] [lawful] police powersone iota - what was a reasonable search

22. Mondale, The Problem of Search and Seizure, 19BENCH B. OF MINN 15. 16 (Feb. 1962Y. ee alxn MIN 5 6 192 eeKamisar, Mondale on Mapp, Feb./Mar. 1977 Civ. LIB.21. 367 U S 643 1961). REV. 62



7/20

still is. 3At a subsequent panel discussion on theof search and seizure in which I partici-

proponents of the exclusionary ruleremarks and made explic-

what those remarks implied: If the policethat evidence they were gathering in

customary manner would now be ex-by the courts, the police must haveviolating the guarantee against unrea-search and seizure all along. This

illuminating responses from the twoenforcement panelists, responses whichMondale, stipr n 2 at 16.

L.J. 681, 697-717, 725-27 (1974). SeeCanon, Testing the Effectiveness ofPolicies at the State and

Levels 5 AM. POLITICS Q 57, 71-(1977); D. Horowitz, THE COURTS AN DPOLICY 220-54. Washington, D.C.:

Brookings Institute, 1976; S Wasby,TOWN POLICE AND THE SUPREME25-34, 81-117, 217-29. Lexington,

D.C. Heath, 1976 (study ofIllinois and western Massachusetts

cf. Critique 69 Nw. U. L. REV. 740a devastating criticism of the Spiottosupra.

For example, Oaks and Spiotto rely on thewhich motions to sup-

are granted in Chicago gambling, nar-and weapons cases to conclude that,after adoption of the exclusionary rule,

and seizures were common-in the enforcement of these offenses by

Chicago police.Canon points out that counting success-

motions is an imperfect indicator of theeffectiveness for several reasons, 62

L.J. at 718. He concludes that, in anyis a gross exception to the

norm of granting suppression mo-id at 721. Canon's study of 65 cities

that in 60 per cent of them motionssuppress were granted one-tenth of theor less and in 91 per cent of the citiesmotions were granted one fourth of theor less. Id at 722.

Moreover, comments Canon, judges in

I think underscore the need for the exclu-sionary rule and its great symbolic value.

Minneapolis City Attorney Keith Stedd:I don't think it [is] proper for us to [say that priorto app the police were violating the law allalong] when the courts of our state were tellingthe police all along that the [exclusionary rule]didn't apply in Minnesota.

St. Paul Detective Ken Anderson:No officer lied upon the witness stand. If youwere asked how you got your evidence, you toldthe truth. You had broken down a door or pried awindow open . often we picked locks TheSupreme Court of Minnesota sustained this timeafter time after time. [The] judiciary okayed it;

Chicago have long been noted for theirwillingness to grant motions to suppressevidence and it is sometimes alleged thatChicago police habitually conduct vice raidsin a manner that ensures that a motion tosuppress will be successful. Id at 720. AsWasby explains, supra at 108-17, 217-23,some judges granted a substantial number ofmotions to suppress during the educationalprocess immediately following adoption ofthe exclusionary rule, but police improve-ment and accommodation to the rules meantthat after this transitional period few mo-tions were granted.

To take another example (there are manyin the Canon article), Oaks' study of arrestbefore and after Mapp focused on one city,Cincinnati. He concluded that the adoptionof the exclusionary rule had had virtually noeffect on the number of arrests for narcotics,weapons and gambling there. See 37 U.CHI.L.REv. at 707. But Canon gathered sim-ilar data for 14 cities (including Cincinnati)and found that only four others had the rather minimal response pattern that Cin-cinnati has. See 62 Ky. L.J. at 706.At the other end of the spectrum, theBaltimore decreases in arrests followingMapp were both dramatically sudden andtruly spectacular, id at 704. Baltimore isprobably an extreme case and is illustratedto counter Oaks' generalizations about theefficacy of the exclusionary rule from thepresentation of Cincinnati's arrest figures.Buffalo is less extreme, but not necessarily



8/20

they knew what the facts were. 24There is no reason to think that the Min-

nesota experience is unique. The heads ofseveral police departments also reacted tothe adoption of the exclusionary rule as ifthe guarantees against unreasonable searchand seizure had ust been written.

For example, shortly after Californiaadopted the exclusionary rule, 25 WilliamParker, then Los Angeles chief of police,warned that his department's ability to pre-vent the commission of crime had beengreatly diminished because henceforth hisofficers would be unable to take affirmativeaction unless and until they possessedsufficient information to constitute proba-ble cause. 26 He did promise, however, that

24. Quoted in Kamisar, On the Tactics of Police-Prosecution Oriented Critics of the Courts, 49 COR-NELL L.Q. 436, 442-43 (1964).25. People v. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 282 P.2d 905(1955).26. W. Parker, POLICE 117. Springfield, Illinois: C. C.Thomas, (Wilson ed. 1957).

typical. Indeed, it is not at all clear that thereis a typical response to the exclusionaryrule. Id at 705.

Canon also noted that political scientistMichael Ban had concluded, after an in-depth study of Mapp's impact in Boston andCincinnati, that the Cincinnati politicalmilieu ... permitted widespread disregardif not defiance of the Supreme Court's rul-ing and that in a number of respects therewas a discernably lesser propensity forcompliance in Cincinnati than in Boston.Id at 689, 698 (Canon's characterization ofBan's findings, which, though unpublished,have been widely circulated among politicalscientists).

At the present time, there is much to besaid for lawyer-political scientist DonaldHorowitz's analysis of Mapp and policebehavior, Horowitz, supra at 224-25, 230-31, 250:Much of the empirical support for the proposi-tion that Mapp does not deter the police fromviolating the Fourth Amendment has been quitecrude .... [T]hat illegal searches are still con-ducted to obtain evidence of certain kinds ofcrimes does not mean that they are still con-ducted with the same frequency for evidence of

72 Judicature/Volume 62 Number 2/August, 1978

[a]s long as the Exclusionary Rule is thelaw of California,your police will respect itand operate to the best of their ability withinthe framework of limitations imposed bythat rule. 27

Similarly, former New York City PoliceCommissioner Michael Murphy recalledhow, when Mapp v. Ohio imposed the ex-clusionary rule on New York and other ad-missibility states, he was immediatelycaught up in the entire problem of reevaluat-ing our procedures and modifying,amending and creating new policies andnew instructions for the implementation ofMapp. Retraining sessions had to be heldfrom the very top administrators down toeach of the thousands of foot patrolmen anddetectives engaged in the daily basic en-forcement function. ' 28

Commissioner Murphy, no less than27. Id. at 131. (Emphasis added).28. Murphy, Judicial Review of Police Methods inLaw Enforcement: The Problem of Compliance byPoliceDepartments,44 TEXAS L. REV. 939, 941 (1966).

other kinds of crimes. That illegal searches arecommon in some cities does not mean that theyare equally common in all cities. Deterrencecannot be viewed as 'a monolithic governmentalenterprise.'Gradually, the rudiments of a more discrimi-nating approach have begun to emerge. What itsuggests is that the extent to which police behav-ior is modified by Mapp depends on a complexset of local conditions, including ... the type ofoffense involved, the particular police unit re-sponsible for specific enforcement tasks, and theway in which local c6urts and lawyers handlesearch-and-seizure matters.

... [T]he fragments indicate it is a mistake tothink that police behavior is never conditionedby the sanction of excluding evidence that mightlead to conviction .... [Un the case of seriouscrimes the policeman starts thinking fairly earlyof what is required to convict, and some of thethings he thinks of are the restrictive rules ofarrest and search. .[Cloncern with conviction is very much.afunction of locale, offense, stage of investigation,and sometimes police unit involved. Receptivity

to the judicial sanction varies accordingly.In closing these brief remarks, I cannot

resist pointing out that at the same timesome critics of the exclusionary rule areurging its elimination or substantial modifi-



9/20

Parker, seemed to think that theof limitations restraining thehad been put there by the exclusion-rule, not the state and federal constitu-guarantees against unreasonble searchseizure. Flowing from the Mapp case,said, ishe issue of defining probableto constitute a lawful arrest and subse-search and seizure.

29

riticisms of the ruleit may forcefully be argued that it isthe exclusionary rule which is illogical

misdirected, but much of the criticism itgenerated. As Senator Robert Wagnerout in the 1938 New York StateConvention:

the arguments [that the exclusionary rule willlaw enforcement] seem to me to bedirected not against the exclusionarybut against the substantive guarantee itself.It is the [law of search and seizure], not thewhich imposes limits on the operationId at 943.

on the ground, inter alia that it haslittle if any effect on police behavior andif any impact on the amount of pre-illegality, other critics are calling forrule's repeal or revision on the ground,alia hat in recent years the police havesuch a high incidenceof complianceFourth Amendment requirements thatabsolute sanctions of the Exclusionaryare no longer necessary to 'police'Brief of Americans for Effective Law(A.E.L.E.) and the Interna-Association of Chiefs of Police (I.A.as Amici Curiai in Support of Petition-12, California v Krivda 409 U.S. 33discussed in Comment, 65 J RIM.& C. 373, 383 (1974).In their amicusbrief, the A.E.L.E. and the

presented the Court with the resultsa study they had conducted of warrantlessand seizures (such searches andwere chosen because these are thein which the officer is acting on hiswith no assistance from a magistrate orattorney, cases in which hismust stand or fall based on his ow nknowledge of search and seizure

of the police. If the rule is obeyed as it should be ,and as we declare it should be, there will be noillegally obtained evidence to be excluded by theoperation of the sanction.It seems to me inconsistent to challenge theexclusionary rule on the ground that it will ham-per the police, while making no challenge to thefundamental rules to which the police are re-quired to conform.30Cooley said of the Fourth Amendment110 years ago that it is better oftentimes

that crime should go unpunished than thatthe citizen should be liable to have hispremises invaded, his trunks broken up, [or]his private books, papers, and letters ex-posed to prying curiosity. 3 1 Why is it noless true when the accused's premises havebeen invaded or his constitutional rights

30. 1 New York Constitutional Convention, RevisedRecord 560 (1938), reprinted in J. Michael and H.Wechsler, CRIMINAL LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION1191-92. Mineola, New York: Foundation Press, 1940.See alsoTraynor, J., in People v. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434,450, 282 P.2d 905 (1955).31. T. Cooley, A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALLIMITATIONS 306. Boston: Little, Brown, 1st ed 1868.

restrictions, and his desire to abide by suchrestrictions, Brief at 16).According to this study, of more than 1000

cases involving warrantless searches andseizures decided by appellate courts nation-wide during the 27-month period of Janu-ary, 1970 through March, 1972, 84 per cent(1,157 of 1,371) were found to be proper-an extraordinarily high degree of policeprofessionalism. Brief at 17.The amicus brief denies that this studyevidences any beneficial exclusionary ruleinfluence upon law enforcement, id. at 18,but I doubt that many will find the denialconvincing. [T]his excellent record of suc-cessful police compliance with the riles ofsearch and seizure, id. is attributed topolice profess ionalism -an attempt bymost police to learn at least in a generalway the restrictions on their search andseizure activities and a good faith desire tocomport themselves properly within suchrestrictions, id. at 19. But what stimulatedthe attempt by most officers to familiarizethemselves, at least in a general way, withthe law of search and seizure? Y.K.



10/20

otherwise violated? f the government couldnot have gained a conviction had it obeyedthe Constitution, why should it be permittedto prevail because it violated the Constitu-tion?32 And why does it generate so muchpopular hostility to disallow the governmentto reap an advantage that it secured, andmight only have been able to secure, byviolating the Constitution?No one, I think, has given a better expla-nation than Professor John Kaplan, one ofthe sharpest critics of the rule:From a public relations point of view, [tie exclu-sionary rule] is the worst possible kind of rulebecause it only works at the behest of a person,usually someone who is clearly guilty, who isattempting to prevent the use against himself ofevidence of his own crimes [But the] fact isthat any rule which actually enforced the de-mands of the Fourth Amendment (whatever theymay be) would prevent the conviction of thosewho would be caught through evidence obtainedin violation of the Fourth Aiendnent The prob-lem with the exclusionary rule is that it worksafter the fact, so that by then we know who thecriminal is, the evidence against him, and theother circumstances of the case. If there weresome way to make the police obey, in advance,the commands of the Fourth Amendment, wewould lose at least as many criminal convictionsas we do today, but in that case we would notknow of the evidence which the police coulddiscover only through a violation of the FourthAmendment. It is possible that the real problemwith the exclusionary rule is that it flaunts beforeus the price we pay for the Fourth Amendment. 33

The time lag argumentThe federal exclusionary rule has been dis-paraged on the ground that it was notadopted by the United States Supreme Courtuntil 1914 and that despite the possibilitythat an interpretation first made 125 years[actually 123] after a constitutional provi-sion might nonetheless be an appropriateone, the time lag between the adoption of

32. See Allen, Federalism and The Fourth Amend-ment: A Requiem for Wolf 1961 SuP. CT. REV. 1, 34;Atkinson, Admissibility of Evidence ObtainedThroughUnreasonableSearches and Seizures 25 COLUM. L.

REV. 11, 25 (1925). True, in a goodly number of casesthe government might still have obtained a convictioneven if it had obeyedthe Constitution, but critics of theexclusionary rule would allow the conviction to standeven if it could have been secured only by violating theConstitution.33. J. Kaplan, CRIMINAL JUSTICE 215-16. Mineola,New York: The Foundation Press, 2d ed 1978.


the fourth amendment and the first appear-ance of the exclusionary rule is at least someindication that it was hardly basic to theconstitutional purpose. 34 This does notstrike me as much of an argument.

Some 160 years after the adoption of theFirst Amendment, the prevention and pun-ishment of the lewd and obscene, the pro-fane [and] the libelous were still thoughtto raise no constitutional problens. 35 In-deed, 128 years passed between the adop-tion of the First Amendment and the firstarticulation of the clear and present dan-ger test 36-what may fairly be called the

34. Kaplan, The Limits of the Exclusionary Rule 26STAN. L. REV. 1027, 1030-31 1974). As Dean Griswoldhas pointed out in SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A DILEMMAOF THE SUPREME COURT 2. Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press, 1975, except for the Boydcase [Boydv. U.S. 116 U.S. 616 1886), virtu lly no search andseizure cases were decided by the Supreme Court in thefirst 110 years of our existence under the Constitution.The view that illegally seized evidence should beexcluded was first laid down by way of dictim in Boydwhich went to great lengths to assert a connectionbetween the Fourth Amendment and the privilegeagainst self-incrimination, though the case could havebeen decided on the self-incrimination clause alone. dans v New York 192 U.S. 585 (1903), appeared, bydictum, to repudiate the Boyd dictum. Thus the exclu-sionary rule was adopted in Weeks following anearlier and seemingly inconsistent start. Reynard,Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure-ASecond Class Constitutional Right? 25 IND.L.J. 259,306-07 (1950). See generally Atkinson, supra n. 32, at13-17; Fraenkel, ConcerningSearches and Seizures 34HARV. L.REv. 361, 366-72 (1921); Notes, 56 YALE L.J.1076, 1077-78 n. 11 (1947); 58 YALE L.J. 144, 148-51(1948).Professor Kaplan also observes, 26 STAN. L.REV. at1031, that the exclusionary rule was'not imposed uponthe states until 1961, and then by a divided SupremeCourt. But the Supreme Court never addressed theissue until 1949 in Wolf and that decision was also by adivided Court 6-3). Over the years, of course, Weeksand Mapp have caught heavy criticism but so, it shouldbe remembered, did Wolf See A. Beisel, CONTROLOVER ILLEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINALLAW: ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT 55-59. Boston:Boston University Press, 1955; Allen, The Wolf Case:Search and Seizure Federalism and Civil Liberties 45ILL.L.REv. 1 (1950); Frank, The United States SupremeCourt: 1948-49 17 U.CEII.L.REv. 1, 32-34 (1950); Kam-isar, Wolf and Lustig Ten Years Later: Illegal StateEvidence in State and FederalCourts 43 MINN.L.REv.1083 (1959); Paulsen, Safeguards in the Law of Searchand Seizure 52 Nw.U.L. REV. 65, 72-76 (1957); Rey-nard, supra at 306-313. See also Pollak, Mr. JusticeFrankfurter:Judgment and the FourteenthAmendment67 YALE L.J. 304, 320-21 & n. 105 (1957).

35. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 255 (1952)(Frankfurter, J.).36. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, (1919);cf. Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, (1919).



11/20

of the law of the first amendment.- 3 7of course, the development of the im-

"void for vagueness" and "over-doctrines in this area-"judge-

or "judicially-created" remediesnot come until still later.3 8

lag between the adoption of theAmendment and the applicability of

privilege against self-incrimination toin the police station as wellin the courtroom was 175 years.39 As

the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, itnot until 19384 0-fairly early in the devel-of constitutional-criminal procedure

still a quarter of a century later thanto counsel in federal

more than that a lawyer wouldperinitted to appear for the defendant ifdefendant could afford to hire one. ' 4 1

federal exclusionary rule has alsodisparaged as not derived from "the

of the Fourth Amend-but only a matter of judicial impli-4 2 This does not strike me as much ofeither-not, at least, unless some-

can cite even one Supreme Court casethe Constitution which is not a

of judicial implication."celebrated constitutional-

procedure cases of our times arev. Zerbst4 and Gideon v. Wain-

44 requiring appointment of counselall federal and state prosecutions respec-when a defendant is unable to pay forof an attorney. But one searches

Kalven, Ernst Freund and the FirstAmendment40 U.CHI.L.REv. 235, 236 (1973).

See W. Lockhart, Y. Kamisar J. Choper, CON-LAW 815-22. St. Paul, Minnesota: West,ed. 1975.

See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966);Dissent from the Miranda Dissents Some

on the New ifth Amendment and the lTes 65 MICH.L.REv. 59, 65, 77-83

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 1938).Schaefer, Federalism and State Criminal Proce-70 HARV.L.REv. 1, 2 (1956).Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 28 (1949). Thehas been made more strongly. See McGarr, TheAn Ill-Conceived and Ineffective52 J.Crim.L., C. P.S. 266, 269 (1961), inPOWER AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM 99, 103.

ed. 1961 (Weeks is a piece ofjudicial legislation").Seen. 40 supra.372 U.S. 335 (1963).

the language of the Sixth and FourteenthAmendments in vain for any mention ofindigent defendants or the assignment orappointment of counsel at trial let alone atpreliminary hearings,4 5 at lineups, 46 in thepolice station 47 or on appeal 48 or in juvenilecourt proceedings. 49

The right to counsel has well been called"the most pervasive right" of an accused, 50but all the Constitution has to say about it isthat "in all criminal prosecutions the ac-cused shall .. have the Assistance ofCounsel."5 1 That's all. The considerablebody of constitutional law which has emerg-ed in this important area has all been amatter of judicial implication.."2Involuntary confessionsAnd what is the source of the rule-firstapplied in 1936,' 3 but shaped and reshapedin the course of the following three dec-ades54-barring the use of involuntary con-fessions as a matter of Fourteenth Amend-ment Due Process? Talk about judge-madeor judicially-created rules The Constitu-tion has nothing to say about "confessions"or "admissions," neither "involuntary" norany other kind.

It will not do to point to the constitutionalprohibition against compelling a person to

45. See Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970).46. Compare United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 21 8(1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967)

with Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).47. Compare Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478(1964) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)with Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977).48. Compare Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353(1963) with Ross v. Moffit, 417 U.S. 600 (1974).49. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).50. See Schaefer, supra n. 41, at 8.51. U.S. Const. Amend. VI.52. By "implication," too, the courts have developedlimitations on the exclusionary rule, e.g., standing, the

attenuation of taint from illegal searches, and the use ofillegally seized evidence in grand jury proceedings orfor impeachment purposes.These limitations are said to undermine the "'judicialintegrity" rationale of the exclusionary rule. See Stonev Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 485 (1976), discussed in Israel,CriminalProcedure,The BurgerCourt, and the Legacyof the Warren Court, 75 MICH. L. REV. 1319, 1410-12(1977). The limitations also make the rule "not 'look'like a constitutional doctrine," according to Kaplan,supra n. 34, at 1030.

53. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).54. See Kamisar, What Is an Involuntary Confes-sion 17 RUTGERs L.REv. 728 (1963).



12/20

ri ht

Defendants mostoften insist that theevidence w s seizedillegally in cases involving narcotics.Many defense attorneys routinely make motion to suppresssuch evidence.

be a witness against himself in any crim-inal case. 55 The privilege was not deemedapplicable to the states until 96456 and bythat time the U.S. Supreme Court h d decid-ed some 30 state confession cases. Moreover,as noted earlier, even if the privilege againstself-incrimination had been deemed appli-cable to the states, the law pertaining to coerced or involuntary confessions stillwould have developed without it.

Until Miranda,7 the prevailing view wasthat because police officers lacked legal au-thority to compel statements, there was nolegal obligation to answer to which a privi-lege could apply, and thus the privilege didnot extend to the police station. 58 As late as1966, Chief Justice Roger Traynor pointedout that although the Fifth Amendment haslong been the life of the party in judicial orlegislative proceedings it has had no

55. U.S. Const. Amend. V.56 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 1964). In extend-ing the privilege against self-incrimination to the statesand at the same time indicating that the privilege hasbeen the unseen governing principle of the confession

cases, Malloy forcefully brought the Fifth Amendmentto bear on the interrogation problem, W. Schaefer,THE SUSPECT AND SOCIETY 16. Evanston: Northwest-ern University Press, 1967. The intertwined doc-trines (the voluntariness standard and the privilegeagainst self-incrimination), noted Justice Schaefer in apostscript to his 1966 Rosenthal Lectures, were fusedin Miranda. Id at 85 n. 21.

57. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).58. See the discussion in Kamisar, supran. 39, at 65,77-83.


life it could call its own in the pre-arraignment stage.

59Nor is it a sufficient answer to say thatFourteenth Amendment Due Process bars

convictions based on inherently untrustwor-thy evidence (long a universally acceptedview, but, incidentally, not an explicit re-quirement of the due process clause either).This does not explain why the question ofthe admissibility of an involuntary confes-sion must be answered with complete dis-regard of whether or not petitioner in factspoke the truth 60 and why a legal standardwhich took into account the circumstance ofprobable truth or falsity is not a permis-sible standard under the Due ProcessClause. 61 It does not explain why involun-tary confessions are inadmissible under theDue Process Clause even though statementscontained in them may be independentlyestablished as true. 62

Nor does it explain the rule of automaticreversal --the rule formulated by the Stoneand Vinson Courts and reaffirmed by theWarren Court that the introduction of an

59. Traynor, The Devils of Due Process n CriminalDetection, Detention, and Trial,33 U.CHI.L.REv. 657,669 1966).

60. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544 (1961).61. Id at 543.62. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952)(relying in large part on rationale of coerced confessioncases to exclude evidence produced y stomachpumping ).



13/20

statement at the trial necessi-reversal, regardless of how much un-

evidence remains to support the con-63

onfessions differentof the search and seizure exclusion-

rule try to distinguish away the coercedcases, 64 and for good reason. Forbecomes clear that the rationale of

coerced confession cases has been ex-beyond protect[ing] the individual

conviction on unreliable or untrust-to strik[ing] down police

which in their general applica-to the prevailing justices asbasic individual immunities,- 65

Professor Francis Allen pointed out aof a century ago, then it becomes

difficult to distinguish the problem ofSee Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596, 597 nMalinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401,404 (1945);v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599 (1948); Stroble v.

343 U.S. 181, 190 (1952); Payne v. ArkansasU.S. 560, 567-68 (1958); Spano v. New York, 360315, 324 (1959); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S.621 (1961); Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503,(1963).the rule of automatic reversal still ap-to coerced or involuntary confessions, seev. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 n.8 (1967),not to Massiah (Massiah v. United States, 377 U Sor Mirandaviolations. See Milton v. Wain-407 U.S. 371 (1972); United States v. Sanchez,F.2d 1198 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Jackson,F.2d 1368 (7th Cir. 1970) (D.C. Cir. 1970). See alsoInvoluntary Confessions: The Allocation ofetween Judge and Jury 21 U.CHIL.

317, 348 (1954).Thus, in criticizing the exclusionary rule as toseized materials, Professor CharlesWright notes, Wright, Must the Criminal o Freethe Constable Blunders? 50 TEXAS L.REv 736 737[W]e are talking only of what lawyers call 'real'Involuntary confessions and other evidencethat kind raise entirely different questions. Innocentmay give false confessions if sufficient pressure isupon them by the police. The murder weapon, theof narcotics, the gambling slips, however,for themselves. (Don't murder weapons andobtained as a result of involuntary confes-for themselves too?).ee alsoWilkey, Why Suppress Valid Evidence? 13

PROSECUTOR 124 (1977): In exclusionary ruleinvolving material evidence there is never any

of reliability. Reliability is in question, forwith a coerced confession Exclusion ofis then proper, because the evidence is inher-unreliable.Allen, The Wolf Case: Search and Seizure Fed-and the Civil Liberties 45 ILL.L.REv. 1, 29

the admission of unconstitutionally seized real evidence from that of involuntaryconfessions. For [in both situations theperils arise primarily out of the proceduresemployed to acquire the evidence ratherthan from dangers of the incompetence ofthe evidence so acquired. 66

Although those unhappy with the exclu-sionary rule still make the claim that theadmissibility of uficonstitutionally seized real evidence and involuntary confes-sions raise entirely different questions, 67thd argument comes about 30 years toolate.68

It is interesting to note that at one pointChief Justice Warren s opinion for the Courtin the famous Spano case reads like a re-statement of the reasoning in Weeks and theHolmes-Brandeis dissents in Olmstead:The abhorrence of society to the use of involun-tary confessions does not turn alone on theirinherent untrustworthiness. It also turns on thedeep-rooted feeling that the police must obey thelaw while enforcing the law; that in the end lifeand liberty can be as much endangered fromillegal methods used to convict those thought tobe criminals as from the actual criminals them-selves.6 9

66. Id.67. ee n. 64 supra68 See Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), andcompanion cases, reversing convictions based on involuntary confessions despite dissenting JusticeJackson's undisputed assertions that [c]hecked withexternal evidence, [the confessions in each case] areinherently believable, and were not shaken as to the

truth by anything that occurred at the trial. 338 U.S.57, 58.

See also Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172-173(1952): It has long ceased to be true that due process oflaw is heedless of the means by which otherwiserelevant and credible evidence is obtained. This wasnot true even before the series of recent cases enforcedthe constitutional principle that the states may *notbaseconvictions upon confessions, however much verified,obtained by coercion To attempt in this case todistinguish what lawyers call 'real evidence' from ver-bal evidence is to ignore the reasons for excludingcoerced confessions.ee generally A. Beisel, CONTROL OVER ILLEGALENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW: ROLE OF THESUPR M COURT 70-86. Boston: Boston UniversityPress, 1955; Allen, supra n. 65, at 26-29; Allen, DueProcessand.State CriminalProcedures:Another Look48 Nw.U.L.REv. 16, 20-25 (1953); Meltzer, supran.63,at 326-29, 343, 347-49; Paulsen, The FourteenthAmendment and the ThirdDegree 6 STAN L REv 411,417-23 (1954).69. Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315,320-21 (1959).



14/20

One of Justice Frankfurter's last opinionson the subject-and I confess that I find itrather mystifying that the author of Wolfwould write this in the same term he dis-sented in Mapp-perhaps best suggests theclose affinity between the Weeks rule andthe coerced confession rationale. Speakingfor a 7-2 majority, in Rogers v RichmondFrankfurter observed:Our decisions under [the Fourteenth] Amend-ment have made clear that convictions followingthe admission into evidence of confessions whichare involuntary annot stand. This is so notbecause such confessions are unlikely to be truebut because the methods used to extract themoffend an underlying principle in the enforce-ment of our criminal law: that ours is an accusa-torial and not an inquisitorial system....To be sure, confessions cruelly extorted may beand have been, to an unascertained extent, foundto be untrustworthy. But the constitutional prin-ciple of excluding confessions that are not volun-tary does not rest on this consideration. Indeed,in many of the cases in which the command ofthe Due Process Clause has compelled us toreverse state convictions involving the use ofconfessions obtained by impermissible methods,independent corroborating evidence left littledoubt of the truth of what the defendant hadconfessed....Since a defendant had been subjected to pres-sures to which, under our accusatorial system, anaccused should not be subjected, we were con-strained to find that the procedures leading to hisconviction had failed to afford him that ueprocess of law which the Fourteenth Amendmentguarantees 7

If a conviction rests in part on an indepen-dently corroborated and concededly truthfulconfession (albeit one found to be the prod-uct of constitutionally impermissible meth-ods), why cannot the conviction stand? Whynot remand those who have made such con-fessions, together with those who managedto remain silent in the face of impermissibleinterrogations, to the remedies of privateaction and such protection as the internaldiscipline of the police, under the eyes of analert public opinion, may afford ? 7 houghthe exclusion of involuntary but verifiedconfessions may be an effective way of de-terring objectionable interrogation methods,why must the court condemn as fallingbelow the minimal standards assured by the

70. 365 U.S. 534, 540-41 (1961).71. Cf Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 31 (1949).78 Judicature/Volume 62 Number 2/August 1978

Due Process Clause a State's reliance uponother methods [to deter such conduct]which, if consistently enforced, would beequally effective ? 72

Moreover, if the impermissible policemethods which produce involuntary confes-sions are typically more offensive to thedignity of the individual and more oftencharacterized by violence than are unconsti-tutional searches and seizures, are not theseobjectionable interrogation methods morelikely to attract the interest of the press,more likely to arouse community opinion,more likely to excite the sympathy of jurors?Why, then, is the court unwilling to rely ontort actions, criminal prosecutions and inter-nal police discipline to check impermissiblepolice interrogation practices? Why does the command of the Due Process Clause compel the court to reverse the convic-tion?73 Why can't the conviction stand?7 4

The reason is that to uphold a convictionresting in part on an involuntary confession,however much verified, would be to sanc-tion the objectionable methods which pro-duced it and to afford these methods thecloak of law ' 75 the very insight which theWeeks Court and Holmes and Brandeis ex -pressed long ago.It The role o the ourtIt is not surprising that a majority of theCourt would conclude in 1949, as it did inWolf v. Colorado7 that the Fourteenth

Amendment did not prevent a state courtfrom admitting evidence obtained by an72. Cf Wolf v. Colorado, supr n. 71.73. Cf Rogers v. Richmond, quoted in text at n. 70supra.74. Id. See also McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S.332, 339 (1943), where, before putting aside constitu-tional issues and invoking its supervisory powers overfederal criminal justice, the Court noted, per Frankfurt-er, J.: It is true, as the petitioners assert, that aconviction in the federal courts, the foundation ofwhich is evidence obtained in disregard of libertiesdeemed fundamental by the Constitution, cannot stand.Boyd v. United States: Weeks v. United States ..75. Cf Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173-74(1952): Coerced confessions offend the community ssense of fair play and decency. So here, to sanction [the'stomach pumping' which produced the morphine

capsules] . would be to afford brutality the cloak oflaw. Nothing would be more calculated to discredit lawand thereby brutalize the temper of a society.76. 338 U.S. 25 (1949).



15/20

search and seizure, and thatFrankfurter would write the opinionCourt. Frankfurter's, and his breth-notions of the obligations of federal-

were a strongly limiting influence onin the criminal cases during the

before the Warren tenure. 77 The Wolfprovided an important demonstration

the Court's essential fidelity to the as-of a federal system at a time whenCourt] was being subjected to extremeirresponsible charges of usurpation of78

one is, or ought to be akenby Frankfurter's reasoning in Wolf:

protection against unreasonable searchseizure is basic to a free society, isagainst the States through the

Clause, but a conviction rest-on evidence obtained in disregard of this

and constitutionally protectedcan stand-that, if I may be permittedwhat I said about the Wolf case 19ago, this is an instance where onebe mprisoned on evidence ob-in violation of due process and ye t

be deprived of life or liberty without dueof l w after all 9

no less than Justice Day inhas assumed elsewhere that permit-

evidence obtained in violation of a lawmade the basis of a conviction wouldthe policy manifested by the law.8 0

Allen, The JudicialQuest for PenalJustice: TheCourtand the CriminalCases 1975 U.ILL.L.F.Allen, Federalismand the FourthAmendment:for Wolf 1961 SuP. CT. REV 1, 5.Kamisar, Wolf and Lustig Ten Years Later: Ille-State Evidence in State and Federal Courts 431083, 1108 (1959).decade later, Justice Frankfurter protested thatdid not mean that the substantive scope of theAmendment as such applies to the states via

Amendment Due Process, that Wolf did notthat every search and seizure violative of theAmendment would make the same conduct onpart of the state officials a violation of the Four-See his dissent in Elkins v. United States, 364206, 233, 237-40 (1960).

members of the Court did read Wolf thisSee Justice Stewart's opinion for the Court in364 U.S. at 212-215; and Justice Clark's opinion

the Court in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 650-51,(1961). For reasons spelled out in Kamisar,at 1101-08, I think the Mapp and Elkins Courtsread Wolfas equating the substantive scope ofFourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

And perhaps no jurist since Holmes andBrandeis has balked as much as Frankfurterat the courts becoming accomplices inpolice lawlessness by sustaining a convic-tion resting on evidence obtained by viola-tion of law. The cases discussed above in-volving involuntary confessions whichbear the stamp of verity illustrate this point,at least implicity.

But Frankfurter hfs been more explicit. Inthe famous McNabb case, he observed for a7-1 majority:A statute [providing that arrestees promptly betaken before the nearest judicial officer] is expres-sive of a general legislative policy to which courtsshould not be heedless when appropriate situa-tions call for its application. Plainly, a conviction resting on evidencesecured through such a flagrant disregard of theprocedure which Congress has commanded can-not be allowed to stand without making the

courts themselves accomplices in willful disobe-dience of law. Congress has not explicitly forbid-den the use of evidence so procured [no morethan did the draftsmen of the Fourth Amend-ment]. But to permit such evidence to be madethe basis of a conviction in the federal courtswould stultify the policy which Congress hasenacted into law. We are not concerned with law enforce-ment practices except in so far as courts them-selves become instruments of law enforcement.We hold only that a decent regard for the duty ofcourts as agencies of justice and custodians ofliberty forbids that men should be convictedupon evidence secured under the circumstancesrevealed here. In so doing, we respect the policywhich underlies Congressional legislation. 8ourt inconsistencies

It will not do to dismiss McNabb as aninstance of the Court's exercise of its super-visory powers over federal criminal justice.Either courts which permit illegally ob-tained evidence to be used or allow convic-tions resting on such evidence to stand be-come instruments of such law enforcementor they do not. Either the courts' duty asagencies of justice and custodians of liber-ty forbids that persons should be convictedupon evidence secured in violation of law orit does not.If a federal court cannot allow a convic-

80. ee McNabb v. United States, quoted in text at n.81 infra.81. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 344-47(1943).



16/20

tion resting on a federal statutoryviolationto stand without making itself an accom-plice in the police lawlessness, then howcan any court allow a conviction resting on afederal constitutionalviolation to stand? Ifpermitting the use of evidence secured indisregard of statutory law -would stultifythe policy which Congress has enacted intolaw, then how can it be maintained thatpermitting the use of evidence obtained byviolating the Fourth and FourteenthAmendments does not stultify the policywhich the Constitution has enacted intolaw?

Nor, as I see it, can the reasoning of thecourt, by Frankfurter, in Wolf, be squaredwith its reasoning, by Frankfurter, in Ro-chin8 -or with Frankfurter's dissent inIrvine.83

In striking down a conviction resting onevidence produced by stomach pumping-and certainly the morphine capsules takenfrom Rochin's stomach were no less trust-worthy than the materials seized fromWolf's office-the Rochin Court, throughFrankfurter, reminded us that due processof law means at least that convictionscannot be brought about by methods thatoffend 'a sense of justice.' ' ' 84 But don't allconvictions brought about by methods thatoffend due process offend a sense of jus-tice ?

California did not affirmatively sanc-tion the police misconduct in Rochin any-more than did Colorado in Wolf. The stom-ach pumping, no doubt, was a tort and acrime. Moreover, as the Rochin Court point-ed out, the brutal conduct naturally enoughwas condemned by the court whose judg-ment is before us. 85 Why, then, would

82. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).83. Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 142 (1954).The Court affirmed Irvine's conviction for horse-racebookmaking and related offenses though based on in-criminating conversations heard through a concealedmicrophone illegally installed in petitioner's home.Justice Jackson wrote the four-man plurality opinion.Justice Clark concurred in the result, noting that if hehad been on the Court when Wolf was decided, hewould have applied the federal exclusionary rule to thestates. 347 U.S. at 138. Justice Black, joined by Douglas,J., and Justice Frankfurter, joined by Burton, J. filedseparate dissents.84. 342 U.S. at 173.85. Id.80 Judicature Volume 62 Number 2/August, 1978

sustaining the conviction amount to sanc-tioning the police misconduct and afford-ing it the cloak of law ? And if it would,why would it not in Wolf?

Nor did the Irvine Court affirmativelysanction the repeated illegal entries intopetitioner's home. Justice Jackson, whowrote the principal opinion in this case, tookpains to note that there is no lack of remedyif an unconstitutional wrong has been donein this instance without upsetting a justifia-ble conviction of this common gambler. 8 6Indeed, Jackson went so far as to direct theclerk of court to forward a copy of therecord in this case, together with a copy ofthis opinion, for attention of the AttorneyGeneral of the United States.. 7

Why, then, did Frankfurter dissent in Ir-vine? Why did he protest that the Courtcannot

dispose of this case by satisfying ourselvesthat the defendant's guilt was proven by trust-worthy evidence and then finding, or devisingother means whereby the police may be discour-aged from using illegal methods to acquire suchevidence. If, as in Rochin '[oin the facts of this casethe conviction of the petitioner has been obtainedby methods that offend the Due Process Clause'[wasn't this true of Wolf?] it is no answer to saythat the offending policemen and prosecutorswho utilize outrageous methods should be pun-ished for their misconduct.That the prosecution in this case, with thesanction of the courts, flouted a legislativelydeclared philosophy against such miscreant con-

duct and made it a policy merely on paper, doesnot make the conduct any the less a disregard ofdue process.Of course it is a loss to the community when aconviction is overturned because the indefensi-ble means by which it was obtained cannot besquared with the commands of due process....But ... [a] sturdy, self-respecting democratic86. 347 U.S. at 137.87. Id. at 138. Only Chief Justice Warren joinedJustice Jackson in this regard. The chief justice was new on the job ; indeed, his nomination had not yetbeen confirmed. In later years he was to recognize thatthe admission of unconstitutionally seized evidence has the necessary effect of legitimizing the conductwhich produced the evidence. See text at n. 106 infra.Incidentally, nothing came of the federal investiga-tion suggested by Justice Jackson, in large part becausethe transgressing officers were acting under orders ofthe chief of police and with the full knowledge of thelocal prosecutor. See Comment, 7 STAN. L.REv. 76, 94n.75 (1954).



17/20

should not put up with lawless policeprosecutors. 88

the differencesthink of only three possible ways to

Wolf with the majority opinion inthe dissents in Irvineand the ration-

of the involuntary confession cases.of them is satisfactory:

Not all violations of the Fourth Amend-offend due process; only certain "out-

or "aggravated" types of unrea-and seizures do so.

even before Mapp v Ohio andv California9 I argued at considerable

to the contrary, 90 the Wolf opinionconceivably have stood for, or haveto stand for, this limited proposition.9

today it is plain that it does not. Al-some justices have balked at "incor-a specific provision of the Bill of

into the Fourteenth "jot-for-jot" andand baggage," especially in the jurycases, it is now clear that the Court did

a "watered-down" version of theAmendment to the states, but rather

which applies to the same extent it hasinterpreted to apply to the federal92

Evidence, verbal or real, which is theof police violence or brutality

be excluded, but not evidenceis obtained by other types of policeis the distinction that Justice Jackson

in Irvine and one which he sought toeven among involuntary confessions. 93

the court has long recognized that invol-or coercion need not be based

347 U.S. at 148-149 & n.1 (Emphasis added).374 U.S. 23 (1963) ("standard of reasonablenesssame under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend-

See also Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)Ker as holding that standard for obtaining a

warrant is the same).Seen 79 supraId.See generally Y. Kamisar, J. Grano & J. Haddad,PROCEDURE 12-15. Los Angeles: Center for

Educational Services, 1977; W. Lockhart, Y.& J. Choper, CONSTITUTION L LAw 577-84.West, 4th ed. 1975.See Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 182 (1953);v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59-60 (1949) (concurringSee also the comments on Justice Jackson'sin Paulsen, supra n. 68, at 428.

upon physical violence or the threat of it.94Why, then, should such violence or thethreat of it be a prerequisite for excludingother unconstitutionally seized evidence?

Moreover, today virtually everybodywould reject a rule, as did Frankfurter andthe other Irvine dissenters, whether it be arule for "real" evidence or for verbal, that"even the most reprehensible means for se -curing a conviction will not taint a verdict solong as the body of the accused was nottouched by State officials." 95

3 Obtainingevidence by searches or sei-zures that would have violated the FourthAmendment if conducted by federal offic-ers does violate Fourteenth AmendmentDue Process when made by state officers.But the use of such evidence in state courtsdoes not offend due process unless thepolice methods involved constitute an "ag-gravated" or "outrageous" or "shocking"violation of the Fourth Amendment.

This, it seems to me, is the doctrine whichemerges from Frankfurter's majority opin-ions in Wolf and Rochin and his dissent inIrvine. I find it a difficult proposition-amost curious one. Only one step is neededfor "involuntary" confessions-the use ofany confession obtained in violation of dueprocess offends due process. But two stepsare required for unreasonable searches andseizures: (1) Did the police violate theFourth and Fourteenth Amendments? (2) Ifso, by how much? Was it a "gross" violationor only "mild"? "Flagrant" or "routine"? he degree of violationWhere does this "two-plimsoll mark dueprocess" test come from? 96 Talk about judi-cially created rules of evidence Where is

94. Thus, the Court threw out the confession in Fikesv. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191 (1957), although "concededly,there was no brutality or physical coercion" and "psy-chological coercion is by no means manifest." Id at 200(Harlan, J., dissenting). See also Leyra v. Denno, 347U.S. 556 (1954); Spano v. New York 360 U.S. 315(1959).

95. 374 U.S. at 146.96. Cf. Frankfurter, J., concurring in Fikes v. Ala-bama, 352 U.S. 191, 199 (1957): I cannot escape theconclusion . that in combination [these circumstanc-es] bring the result below the Plimsoll line of 'dueprocess.

See Field, Frankerfurter . Concurring, 71 HARv.L.REV. 77 (1957); Kamisar, supran. 79, at 1121-29.



18/20

this written or even implied in the Constitu-tion? Next to this test, surely, the WeeksCourt's reading of the Fourth Amendmentand the Mapp Court's reading of the Fourthand Fourteenth seem like pretty straightfor-ward interpretations of the Constitution.

To say that police conduct is unconstitu-tional, that it violates the minimal standardsof due process, is as bad a label as one canput on police misconduct. How then can itbe said that still more is required for exclu-sion? Why then must the police be found tohave violated sub-minimal standards?

How does one "barely" or "mildly" vio-late what is "basic to a free society" or"implicit in the concept of ordered liberty ' ' 97?If police action which violates due processis not gross or aggravated police misconductper se then why is it a violation of duepro ess

My purpose in comparing the reasoning inWolf with that in McNabb Rochin and othercases, and with what might be called the"imperative of judicial integrity" consider-ation in the confession area, 98 is not todemonstrate that the Court, or Frankfurter inparticular, has been inconsistent. That is tobe expected; indeed, it is almost inevitable.After all, Justice Frankfurter sat on the Su -preme Court for more than 20 years and fewjudges who have served half as long havenot been inconsistent.

My purpose rather is to provide "educa-tion in the obvious":

99Almost no sensitivejudge can take seriously the implications ofWolf. Almost no sensitive judge can live

with those implications. At some point hewill not care about or even think about"alternatives" to the remedy of exclusion-he will exclude the evidence however logi-cally relevant and verifiable it be or, if thecourt below admitted it, he simply will notlet the conviction stand. At some point hewill be unable to do otherwise.

When that point is reached, he will dowhat a majority did in Rochin and somewould have done in Irvine he will refuse

97. See Allen, supra n. 78, at 9. See also Kamisar,supran. 79, at 1121-24.98. Cf lkins v. United States, supran. 7.99. Holmes, Law and the Court in OLLE TELEG L PAPERS 291, 292. New York: Harcourt, 1920.

82 Judicature/Volume62 Number 2/August 1978

to have a hand in such dirty business. '0 0This is why the Weeks Court's interpretationof the Fourth Amendment, Wigmore's fa-mous criticism to the contrary notwithstand-ing '0 1, is, if not perfectly logical, quiteunderstandable-even quite natural.The Weeks Court believed this point was

reached when the police violated the FourthAmendment; the Rochin Court and the rvine dissenters believed that it was reachedwhen the police violated some sub-minimalstandard. But the response was the same: Wedon't care about possible tort actions orother possible "alternative remedies" Thegovernment obtained the conviction by "in-defensible means." 10 2 We the judges cannotsanction this. We the judges cannot afford it"the cloak of law."' 10 3

judge s thresholdTo say that most judges have what might becalled a threshold for excluding trustworthyevidence is not to deny that the thresholdvaries considerably among them or eventhat over the years it may shift significantlyin the mind or heart of an individual judge.

In his decade and a half as Chief Justiceof the United States, for example, Earl War-ren's threshold for exclusion lowered quite abit. In his first year on the Court, he joinedin Justice Jackson's principal opinion inIrvine upholding a conviction based on"incredible" police misconduct but assuringus that "admission of the evidence does notexonerate the officers . if they have violat-

100. Holmes, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. UnitedStates, 277 U.S. 438, 470 (1928). As I read Holmes'dissent, he did not, as many seem to think, regardwiretapping as inherently "ignoble" or "immoral," butonly wiretapping-or for that matter, any other meansof obtaining evidence by the government-which con-stituted a specific violation of the law. This was the"dirty business."101. See8 J. Wigmore, EVIDENCE 2184 at 35,40 3ded. 1940).102. See text at n. 88 supra. Are not all unconstitu-tional means of obtaining evidence to secure a convic-tion "indefensible"? And if not, why are they unconsti-tutional?103. See text at n. 88 supra. If alternative means ofpunishing or discouraging governmental lawlessnessare available (at least theoretically), as they were inRochin and Irvine why does admitting the evidenceconstitute "put[ting] up with lawless police and prose-cutors"? And if it does, why did the Court put up withthe governmental lawlessness in Wolf?



19/20

defendant's constitutional rights 10 4is no lack of remedy if an unconstitu-wrong has been done in this instance

upsetting [the] conviction. ' 10 5years later, however, the Chief Jus-

for the Court inAnd another seven years later, verythe end of his career, he observed for

Court in the stop and frisk cases:under our Constitution cannotwill not be made party to lawless invasions ofconstitutional rights of citizens by permittinggovernmental use of the fruits ofinvasions. Thus in our system evidentiarythe context in which the judicialof inclusion and exclusion approvesconduct as comporting with constitutionaldisapproves other actions by stateA ruling admitting evidence in a criminalwe recognize, has the necessary effect ofthe conduct which produced thewhile an application of the exclusion-rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur.hen [unconstitutional] conduct is identi-it must be condemned by the judiciary andfruits must be excluded from evidence intrials. s6

seem to have had alow threshold for exclusion. In

Amendment Due Process casesJustice Jackson appears to have had

high one. For him unconstitu-police conduct was not enough, not

serious or aggravated unconstitutionalIt had to involve physical violence

as well.a judge is more likely to give short

to alternatives to the remedy of exclu-in a shocking case of police misconductin a routine one is hardly surprising.

is it logical? If police misconduct is everto attract the interest of the press,community opinion and excite the

of jurors, it is going to do so in theor shocking case (such as RochinIrvine -not the routine or mild

search and seizure caseas Wolf .is why-although his reasoning must

curious to many of us who have grownwith Wolf, Rochin and Irvine-a leading

347 U.S. at 137.dTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 15 1968).

proponent of the exclusionary rule main-tained, some 50 years ago, that infringe-ments of the Fourth Amendment which gen-erate the least public outcry pose the strong-est case for exclusion. 10 7 The more violentand obvious infringement, he was willingto concede, may be curtailed through civilor criminal actions against the guilty offic-ers. lO8It would be hard to deny that a court'srefusal to permit the use of evidence ob-tained by obvious or shocking policemisconduct is, at least in some measure,symbolic. It signifies to the police officer andto the general public alike the court's inwillingness to tolerate the underlying policelawlessness. But if this is true in a casewhere the alternative remedies of tort ac-tions, criminal prosecutions and internaldiscipline are most likely to be effective,how can it be any less so when the courtallows the evidence to be used in a not-so-shocking case of unconstitutional policeconduct-and thus one where alternatives tothe remedy of exclusion are unlikely, or atleast less likely, to amount to anything? L Drawing the bottom linA court which admits the evidence in such acase manifests a willingness to tolerate theunconstitutional conduct which producedit. How can the police and the citizenry beexpected to believe that the governmenttruly meant to forbid the conduct in the firstplace ? 0 9 Why should the police or thepublic accept the argument that the availa-bility of alternative remedies permits thecourt to admit the evidence without sanc-tioning the underlying misconduct when thegreater possibility of alternative remedies inthe flagrant or willful case doi~s notallow the court to do so?

A court which admits the evidence in acase involving a run of the mill FourthAmendment violation demonstrates an in-

107. Atkinson, Admissibility of Evidence ObtainedThrough Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, 25COLUM L.REv. 11, 24 (1925).108. Id.109. Paulsen, The Exclusionary Rule and Miscon-duct by the Police, 52 J. CRiM. L.C. P.S. 255, 2581961), in POLI E POWER AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM87, 90. Chicago: Aldine, Sowle ed. 1962.



20/20

sufficient commitment to the guaranteeagainst unreasonable search and seizure. Itdemonstrates the contrast between morali-ty professed by society and immorality prac-ticed on its behalf. 110 It signifies that gov-ernment officials need not always be sub-jected to the same rules of conduct that arecommands to the citizens. '

Where should the threshold for exclusionbe put? At what point should a judge saythat the police misconduct is so indefensibleor offensive as to warrant throwing out theevidence it produced? To say that this pointis not reached until the police have resortedto violence or brutality or that it is notreached unless they have perpetrated some gross or serious or aggravated viola-tion of the Constitution seems neither aprincipled nor a manageable way to goabout it.

If the line must be drawn somewhere, I110. Frankfurter, J., dissenting in On Lee v. UnitedStates, 343 U.S. 747, 759 (1952).111. Brandeis, J., dissenting in Olmstead v. UnitedStates, 277 U.S. 438, 471, 485 (1928).112. See Stone v. Powell 428 U.S. 465, 538 (1976)(White, J., dissenting)(evidence should not be excludedwhen seized by an officer acting in the good-faithbelief that his conduct comported with existing law andhaving reasonable grounds for this [good-faith] be-lief ); Brown v. Illinois 422 U.S. 590, 610-11 (1975)(Powell, J., concurring in part) (distinguishing between flagrantly abusive Fourth Amendment violations and technical or good faith violations);Also Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal NarcoticsAgents 403 U.S. 388, 418 (1971) (Burger, C. J., dissent-ing) ( inadvertent or honest mistakes by policeshould not be treated in the same way as deliberateand flagrant Irvine-type violations of the FourthAmendment ); United States v. Soyka 394 F.2d 443,451-52 (2d Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J., dissenting) (officer'serror so minuscule and pardonable as to renderexclusion of evidence inappropriate).See also A Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Proce-dure SS 290.2 (Official Draft, 1975) (evidence shall beexcluded only if violation upon which it was based was substantial ; all violations shall be deemed substan-tial if gross, wilful and prejudicial to accused ; other-wise court shall consider, inter alia, the extent ofdeviation from lawful conduct and the extent towhich the violation was wilful ); E. Griswold, SEARCH

AND SEIZURE A DILEMMA OF THE SUPREME COURT 58(1975) (officer should be supported if he acted decent-ly and did what you would expect a good, careful,conscientious police officer to do under the circum-stances ).If the officer, as Dean Griswold described it, acted inthe manner that a good, careful, conscientious policeofficer is expected to act, or if, as Judge Friendlymaintained in Soyka supra he officer's error was sominuscule and pardonable as to render the drasticsanction of exclusion ... lmost grotesquely inappro-84 Judicature/Volume 62 Number 2/August 1978

can think of no more logical and fitting placeto draw it than at unconstitutional policeconduct, however mild, honest or in-advertant some may label it. 1 1 2 Frankfurterargued that the Court should reverse inIrvine although it affirmed the conviction inWolf because the Irvine police misconductwas more shocking and offensive. But Jack-son responded: Actually, the search [inWolf] was offensive to the law in the samerespect, if not the same degree, as here. 3

I think Jackson was right (but for thewrong reason). Once the Court identifies thepolice action as unconstitutional, that oughtto be the end of the matter. There should beno degrees of offensiveness among dif-ferent varieties of unconstitutionalpoliceconduct. A violation of the Constitutionought to be the bottom line. This is wherethe Weeks and Mapp Courts drew the line.This is where it ought to stay. Elpriate, then the error should not render the searchor seizure unreasonable within the meaning of theFourth Amendment-as the Second Circuit held onrehearing en banc in Soyka 394 F.2d 452. After all,probably cause is supposed to turn on the factual andpractical considerations of everyday life on which rea-sonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act,Brinegarv. United States 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949); andaffidavits are supposed to be interpreted in a common-sense rather than a hypertechnical manner, UnitedStates v. Ventresca 380 U.S. 102, 109 (1965).In light of existing law, the proposals or suggestionsto modify the exclusionary rule must mean that thechallenged evidence should be admissible even whenthe officer acted unreasonably i.e., negligently so longas his misconduct was not deliberate or reckless, but inadvertent. On this issue (although I disagree withhim on a number of other points) I share ProfessorKaplan's concern: Such a modification of the rule would put a premiumon the ignorance of the police officer and, more signifi-cantly, on the department which trains him, Kaplan,supran. 34 at 1044;* Would add one more factfinding operation, and anespecially difficult one to administer, to those alreadyrequired of a lower judiciary which, to be frank, hashardly been very trustworthy in this area, id. at 1045; So long as so many trial judges remain hostile to theexclusionary rule, the addition of another especiallysubjective factual determination will constitute almostan open invitation to nullification at the trial courtlevel, id.See also Proceedingsof 48th Annual Meetingof AL l374-98 (1971) (debate on Model Pre-Arraignment Codeproposal, supra o exclude illegally obtained evidenceonly when underlying violation was substantial ).113. 347 U.S. at 133.

YALE KAMISAR is professor o law at theUniversity o Michigan

is the exclusionary rule an illogical or unnatural interpreta

Documents