I just wanted to emphasize what this bill does and what this bill does not do. This bill does not repeal legislatively the entire exclusionary rule, or anything even that comes close to it. Speaking for myself, I would not support a bill that would entirely repeal the exclusionary rule. I think the Supreme Court had a logic in saying that there was a reason to exclude evidence in certain cases that they enunciated, I thought very well, in the Mapp versus Ohio decision of 1961. Rather, we are taking an exception to the exclusionary rule which already exists. It has already been stated by the Supreme Court in the Leon case. In that case the Supreme Court said that where police officers make an honest error, a good-faith error, that in that particular case it made no sense under the theory of the exclusionary rule, under the theory of trying to motivate law enforcement logic, to suppress that evidence.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of H.R. 666 and the exclusionary rule during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
“The Supreme Court needs reforms urgently to restore the American people’s confidence to that body,” said Schiff. “Congress must enact an enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court Justices, particularly in light of Justices on this…
This bill will help the Pit River Tribe manage the Four Corners site as their ancestors did.
“In California and across the country, local election administrators have borne the brunt of MAGA politicians undermining trust in our elections, while lacking the resources to guard against these threats.
“The key to making corruption a powerful issue is by always bringing it back to the impact of that, the cost of his corruption,”





