A longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule, is getting bruised. The rule requires courts to exclude – or throw out – some evidence seized by law enforcement through illegal searches.
But a ruling last month by the Supremes allowed the prosecution of an Alabama man on drug-possession and gun-possession charges despite the fact that the contraband was found through an illegal search. The 5-to-4 decision in Herring v U.S. is being hailed as perhaps the start of the fulfillment of a longtime conservative dream.
For more, see:
- Defendants’ Ability to Suppress Evidence Taking a Hit in the Wall Street Journal
- Why Does the U.S. Have an Exclusionary Rule?
Follow me on Twitter 