Eva M. Clayton: “Would not the Constitution be superior language to what the gentleman has codified? If the gentlewoman would yield…”

“Would not the Constitution be superior language to what the gentleman has codified? If the gentlewoman would yield further, it would not be superior in the sense--it is superior in any event to anything the court would do--but we have to interpret the Constitution for purposes of deciding whether to admit evidence or not. That is, we are not modifying the Constitution in any way, we are simply providing a modification to a Supreme Court rule made in 1914 to police the police. It was their decision to create this rule of evidence. They did not modify the Constitution when they created it. And they came along and said we are going to change our rule because we think it is too harsh, what we did in 1914, back in 1984. And they said, what we have before us is a search warrant case, and we think the police in that case really acted in good faith. They thought it was a good warrant, it turns out that it was not a good warrant. We do not think there is any reason to exclude the evidence that they got. There is nothing to be gained by this, because we are not going to deter their conduct. So we want to simply expand that.”