OC for ME
Regular Member
A false presupposition as it stands today. Citizens are offended by cops who don't give a rip about our rights and will let a judge work it out. The offense that the citizen endures can never be made right, the citizen can never be made whole. The state throwing public money at those violated by state agents does not correct deviant behavior of state agents acted out under the guise of official state business.Did the Framers intend the exclusionary rule? Even the rule's most ardent supporters admit that they did not. Virtually no one doubts that, until the twentieth century, criminals did not go free, as Judge (later Justice) Benjamin N. Cardozo put it, "because the constable blundered." People v. Defore (1926). The criminal would have been convicted, and the offending constable would have been liable as a tort-feasor for trespassing upon a person's privacy without proper authority or cause.
The central argument in favor of exclusion is that it is necessary to give the Fourth Amendment real, as opposed to theoretical, meaning. If police officers were allowed to offend the Constitution with impunity (which, it is alleged, they would if a defendant could be convicted on tainted evidence), the Fourth Amendment would be a "mere form of words." This argument presupposes that illegal searches and seizures are deterred by the prospect of exclusion. If the evidence cannot be used at trial, what is the point of seizing it?
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/144/searches-and-seizures
The real irony is that the state is the only entity that is permitted to define reasonable. Thus, the existence of "reasonable gun restrictions" enacted by the state and being held as reasonable by the state. Changing elected officials does not address the now lawfulness of anti-gun laws due to the meddling of the courts on this issue.