I have to say that this gentleman is disappointed because there is not a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in this bill, something that would have helped us in the Oklahoma City prosecution. We passed it through this House five times. It ought to be acceptable to our body, but it was objected to by the Senate. Now, imagine our predicament if we had brought this bill with everything in it; the only difference was it also had warrantless wiretaps and multipoint wiretaps. That is a very serious issue I think Members deserve more time to consider. And for that reason, above all, it is not put in a bill that is coming to us under a suspension of the rules that we have not had an opportunity to read. I hope we revisit this issue, and I think we must do so. As I have said, we cannot rest against the war on terrorism. It is one of the grizzly realities of the 21st century.
TJ Cox: “I have to say that this gentleman is disappointed because there is not a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the exclusionary rule and wiretaps in relation to a bill during House debate.
Share
More from TJ Cox
I rise to seek clarification concerning one provision of the bill. Section 6(c) is entitled ``Opposition to Multilateralization of ABM Treaty.'' It states the sense of the Congress that no agreement demarcating the boundary between theater…
that is, again, the correct interpretation. As the gentleman and I have discussed privately, this is a very important power that the Select Committee will possess. It should be used sparingly, not only after a vote, but after consultation…
One of the first things Ryan Zinke did after becoming Secretary was try to implement a massive solution in search of a problem.
I rise to applaud Chairman Spence and the Conferees for legislation vital to our country's national security. I am especially pleased to note that the bill includes a number of key elements of the ``Policy for Freedom in China'' that…





