 | Orrin G. Hatch - 1998 - 326 pages
...prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guarantee in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it." Over time, the Supreme Court realized that exclusionary rule is not a sensible remedy for an unlawful... | |
 | Kermit Hall - 2000 - 446 pages
...that in mind that I wrote in the Court's opinion in the Elkins case that "(t)he rule . . . compel [s] respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only...available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it."1" I believed then, and I believe now, that the exclusionary rule is constitutionally required,... | |
 | James R. Acker, David C. Brody - 2004 - 1342 pages
...Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty...incentive to disregard it." Elkins v United States (364 US at 217) Moreover, our holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and... | |
 | Maryann Zihala - 2005 - 234 pages
...Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter— to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty...way— by removing the incentive to disregard it." Indeed, we are aware of no restraint, similar to that rejected today, conditioning the enforcement... | |
 | George P. Fletcher, Steve Sheppard - 2005 - 696 pages
...Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty...incentive to disregard it." Elkins v. United States, supra, at 217. V. Moreover, our holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the... | |
 | Paul H. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill - 2005 - 336 pages
...action."); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 656 (1961) ("[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty...— by removing the incentive to disregard it.'") (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206, 217 (1960)); see also United States v. Leon, 468 US 897,... | |
 | Albert P. Melone, Allan Karnes - 2008 - 724 pages
...ground was emphasized: "The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter— to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty...way — by removing the incentive to disregard it." . . . The Mapp majority justified the application of the rule to the States on several grounds, but... | |
| |
Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it. 
