DSpace Repository

Criminal Procedure Ombudsman as a Substitute for the Exclusionary Rule: A Proposal

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Davidow, Robert P.
dc.date.accessioned 2010-04-09T17:27:42Z
dc.date.available 2010-04-09T17:27:42Z
dc.date.issued 1973
dc.identifier.citation 4 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 317 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10601/490
dc.description.abstract The problem of the exclusionary rule is well known to all those familiar with the administration of criminal justice in the United States today. The problem has at least three aspects. First, the exclusionary rule (that is, the rule which requires exclusion of trustworthy evidence seized in violation of the fourth, fifth; sixth, and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution) does, in some instances, permit guilty persons to escape punishment because the police have violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Second, police lawlessness has not been deterred by the existence of the exclusionary rule, especially in those instances in which the police have pursued goals other than that of prosecution of criminal defendants. Third, the exclusionary rule has provided no remedy for the innocent person, who, presumably, is never brought to trial and thus never has an opportunity to invoke the exclusionary rule. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Texas Tech Law Review
dc.relation.uri http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/text4&collection=journals&id=327&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav
dc.subject Exclusionary rule en_US
dc.subject Fourth amendment en_US
dc.subject Fifth amendment en_US
dc.subject Sixth amendment en_US
dc.title Criminal Procedure Ombudsman as a Substitute for the Exclusionary Rule: A Proposal en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record