Mr. Chairman, the exclusionary rule is what is not in the Constitution. It was not imposed upon the States as a mandatory Federal doctrine until the year 1961. And somehow the Republic made it all that way from the 18th century until 1961 without the exclusionary rule. Nevertheless, I support it as enunciated in the case Mapp versus Ohio and the circumstances they were talking about, an outrageous ignorance of following constitutional prescription, and the reason they imposed it on the States. But it makes no sense to impose it in a situation where an officer is in objective good faith. Although the last speaker said we should not change anything, the Supreme Court has already made a modification in the exclusionary rule by allowing this very good faith exception in the case where a warrant is obtained by police officers and the warrant is later held to be invalid, and that has not caused a wholesale violation of constitutional rights through that exception.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the exclusionary rule and its implications during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
Instead they handed DHS BILLIONS more of your tax dollars without any constraint after the shooting and killing [of] individuals in the streets.
Nor does the bill provide any relief to Southern Californians still needing assistance to recover and rebuild after the devastating fires that took place eighteen months ago. Donald Trump’s desire to punish Los Angeles and the state of…
From safety improvements to modernizing aging infrastructure, this federal funding will make critical upgrades at California’s airports.
From upgrading runways and taxiways to reducing airport noise and improving passenger facilities, these investments will make airports across California safer and more reliable.





