Abstract
This essay engages in the risky business of predicting future Supreme Court developments. In the first part, I analyze the evidence suggesting that the Roberts Court might abolish the exclusionary rule. The critique of exclusion in Hudson v. Michigan is both less and more probative than appears at first blush. Part II turns to some less obvious evidence pointing in the direction of retaining the exclusionary rule. First, abolition of the exclusionary rule is inconsistent with the Hudson majority's apparent content with prevailing police behavior. Second, abolition of the exclusionary rule would curtail the power of the Supreme Court. Part III offers a prediction of a somewhat different sort. If the Court were to abolish the exclusionary rule, the exclusionary rule would return, in some form, in a decade or so. Prediction is hazardous. I hazard, however, the prediction that the Roberts Court will not abolish the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.
Recommended Citation
Donald Dripps,
The Fourth Amendment, the Exclusionary Rule, and the Roberts Court: Normative and Empirical Dimensions of the Over-Deterrence Hypothesis,
85
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
209
(2010).
Available at:
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol85/iss1/12
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Evidence Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
