The Reasonable Exclusionary Rule

Abstract

This Note suggests that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should itself be subject to a reasonableness inquiry. The question of suppression should be determined by whether it is reasonable to suppress the illegally obtained evidence by balancing the relevant values the Supreme Court has endorsed through the years: deterrence and judicial integrity. The deterrence rationale justifies looking at the officer’s intent in violating the Fourth Amendment, as the Court recently found. This Note argues that the judicial integrity justification allows the court to consider the degree of the Fourth Amendment invasion. Under this approach, after determining that the officer violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment right, the court would consider the officer’s intent in conducting the search or seizure and the particular Fourth Amendment interest involved to determine whether suppression is warranted. At the extremes, evidence obtained through an unlawful search of a home — in which an individual’s expectation of privacy is at its peak — done in bad faith would warrant suppression, whereas evidence found during a Terry stop — an invasion of a lesser privacy interest — by a well-intentioned officer would not.