NCJ Number
6519
Journal
Northwestern University Law Review Volume: 66 Issue: 5 Dated: (NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1971) Pages: 698-713
Date Published
1971
Length
16 pages
Annotation
CASE NOTE EXAMINING THE USE OF ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE AT SENTENCING HEARINGS.
Abstract
THE COURT IN U.S. V. SCHIPANI HEARD EVIDENCE AT THE SENTENCING HEARING WHICH HAD BEEN EXCLUDED AT TRIAL. THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE RULING. ITS BASIS FOR THE DECISION WAS THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS DETERRING POLICE OFFICERS FROM OBTAINING EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY IN ORDER TO SECURE A CONVICTION. THE AUTHOR BELIEVES THE COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING JUDICIAL INTEGRITY AS A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED. HE CONCLUDES THAT IN THE PAST, SINCE THERE WAS NO RULE PERMITTING OR PROHIBITING THE USE OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE AT SENTENCING, THE WORKINGS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN THE SENTENCING CONTEXT RESULTED IN ONLY A SMALL QUANTUM OF DETERRENCE INDEPENDENT OF THAT GENERATED BY EXCLUSION AT THE TRIAL. ONCE A RULE ALLOWING UTILIZATION OF EXCLUDED EVIDENCE IS FORMULATED, HOWEVER, THE SITUATION IS RADICALLY ALTERED AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS MAY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF A LOOPHOLE THEY NEVER CONSIDERED. BY DECLARING THAT THERE IS NO DETERRENCE TO ILLEGAL POLICE ACTIVITY IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE FROM SENTENCING HEARINGS THE COURTS WILL GENERATE AN INCREASED NUMBER OF ILLEGAL SEARCHES. THE AUTHOR FEELS THAT DETERRENCE DOES RESIDE IN THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT ITS ADMISSION WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE PREVENTION OF WHICH IS ONE OF EXCLUSION'S ULTIMATE GOALS. AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED.