The State Exclusionary Rule as a Deterrent against Unreasonable Search and Seizure (A Study of the Problem in Illinois)

1955 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 697 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Flynn
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Exclusionary Rule

The Societal Cost of the Exclusionary Rule: An Empirical Assessment

1983 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter F. Nardulli
Keyword(s):  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Social Benefits ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Societal Costs ◽  
Physical Evidence ◽  
Using Data ◽  
First Offenders ◽  
The Impact

A key criticism that has emerged in the debate over the search and seizure exclusionary rule is that it exacts heavy societal costs in the form of lost prosecutions and that such costs outweigh any demonstrated social benefits. This article examines the costs of three exclusionary rules using data collected for 7,500 cases in a nine-county study of criminal courts in three states. It emphasizes motions to suppress physical evidence but for comparative purposes also includes motions to suppress confessions and identifications. The results show that the various exclusionary rules exact only marginal social costs. Motions to suppress physical evidence are filed in fewer than 5% of the cases, largely drug and weapons cases, while serious motions to suppress identifications and confessions are filed in 2% and 4% of the cases. The success rate of motions to suppress is equally marginal. Successful motions to suppress physical evidence occur in only 0.69% of the cases, while successful motions to suppress identifications or confessions occur much less often. Moreover, not all who successfully suppressed evidence escaped conviction, especially when only an identification or a confession was suppressed. In all, only 46 cases—less than 0.6% of the cases studied—were lost because of the three exclusionary rules combined, most of them involving offenses that would have incurred less than six months’ imprisonment or first offenders. Finally, the impact of unsuccessful motions on subsequent plea bargaining was found to be marginal; only unsuccessful motions to exclude confessions resulted in any real sentencing concessions.

scholarly journals IS CYBER SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE CYBERCRIMES AND CYBERSECURITY BILL CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION ACT?

Obiter ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melody Musoni
Keyword(s):  
Personal Information ◽  
The State ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Right To Privacy ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

The focus of this note is to analyze whether the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill provides a harmonization between search and seizure and the constitutional right to privacy. This will be achieved by discussing the State powers of search and seizure in cyberspace vis-à-vis the right to privacy as envisaged in the Protection of Personal Information Act. Further, this note investigates whether the Cybercrimes and Cybersecurity Bill achieves the purpose of combatting cybercrimes without the infringement of the right to privacy. Subsequently, the article provides plausible recommendations on how the State should lawfully conduct searches and seizures of articles related to cybercrimes.

scholarly journals The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011: An Unprecedented Licence to Search

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Harriet Bush
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Video Surveillance ◽  
Video Camera ◽  
The State ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
The Right ◽  
Camera Surveillance

This article examines the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011 which was passed as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the case Hamed v R. This Act provided that a search was not unlawful simply because video surveillance was used. The article explores the previous court decisions on the lawfulness of police use of covert video surveillance in order to ascertain whether the premise upon which the Act was based, that video surveillance was lawful before Hamed v R, was correct. It then looks at the ratio decidendi of Hamed v R and the potential wider implications of this judgment. Finally, it assesses the state of the law under the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act and whether this Act limited the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure which is contained in s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The Transnational Use of Torture Evidence

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 362-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Ambos
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
The Law

The Article examines the “transnational” use of torture evidence, i.e., the use of evidence obtained by torture by third states or parties in national criminal trials. The analysis of the law of the international criminal tribunals shows that supranational torture evidence must be excluded since such evidence is unreliable and damages the integrity of the proceedings. The same applies to the admission of transnational torture evidence before national tribunals. The strict exclusionary rule of Article 15 Convention Against Torture (CAT) confirms this view. The rationale for this rule is found in the general unreliability of torture evidence, its offensiveness to civilized values and its degrading effect on the administration of justice. The burden of proof must, as a rule, rest with the state as the party that presents the controversial evidence. For practical and fundamental considerations of fairness, such evidence should not be admitted if there is a real, serious risk that it was obtained by torture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document