NCJ Number
91248
Date Published
1983
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This address reviews the legal bases and court decisions bearing upon the judicial handling of illegally obtained evidence in Canada and the United States; the Reagan Administration's proposal for modifying the exclusionary rule is explained.
Abstract
In Canada, the common law approach of not excluding from admission evidence obtained illegally is followed, although there is some talk of permitting judicial discretion to exclude evidence that was willfully and flagrantly obtained in an illegal manner. In the United States, on the other hand, the exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence obtained illegally, has been enforceable against both Federal and State prosecutions for the past 22 years. In being enforced in an absolute manner, the seriousness of the crime has not mattered nor has the significance of the evidence. It has made no difference, either, whether law enforcement officers made a good-faith effort to ensure the legality of the search. The pursuit of procedural justice has eclipsed the pursuit of substantive justice, so the demonstrably guilty persons have gone free. The Reagan Administration's proposal for modification of the exclusionary rule would apply to the 'good-faith exception.' Under this approach, the court would weigh all of the relevant circumstances to determine whether an officer has acted in 'good-faith' in obtaining evidence in a given case. Such an approach would balance the interests of protecting the public from criminal behavior while ensuring the protection of citizens' privacy rights.