Is there an alterative to the Exclusionary Rule?

Answer 1

There are many possible alternatives.

Civil lawsuits were tried for a while, but found to be an ineffective deterrent, which is why the rule was put in place.

Criminal prosecutions for officers who violation constitutional and legal requirements would be a possible deterrent. But in our current political climate, too many people seem to think it's Ok to break the law if the goals are noble. And too many people seem to think that those accused of crimes don't even deserve a trial. Let alone that law enforcement is unlikely to prosecute other law enforcement agents for such actions.

So it's unlikely that many such instances of constitutional violations would even be prosecuted. That's why the courts need to be the branch enforcing the rules. And other than the exclusionary rule, the court ability to issue contempt citations against officers who violate the rule is the only alternative that would have any likelihood of being effective.

Answer 2

There are alternatives, but most people don't seem to like them
(1) Allow defendants to file civil actions for civil rights violations, even if they're guilty of the underlying crime. (Hard to win)
(2) Simply discipline officers -- officers who repeatedly violate rights lose their job, go on suspension, etc. (Which is fine as a general deterrent but doesn't stop the officer that _one time_ when he "_knows_" that the only way to get the evidence is through illegal methods -- he'd be wililng to risk his job to put the guy away.)

There are two alternatives--but their weaknesses show why exclusion is the least tasteful but most effective remedy.

Answer 3

Like what? We allow the evidence, and if the defendant is convicted, we make the police apologize to him on his way to the state pen?

Surely you know that there are numerous exceptions to the Rule. It isn't a terrible burden on the police.

Answer 4

no