Bob Inglis: “I do think this does gut the bill. I think it guts it for the simple reason it strikes out three-quarters of the bill.…”

“I do think this does gut the bill. I think it guts it for the simple reason it strikes out three-quarters of the bill. It takes out the good faith exception that we tried to put in the bill. It is as simple as that. It is not that there is anything wrong with the Constitution or any of the language that the gentleman is offering. It is that what it does in the process is just strike after the word 'States' everything there that talks about a reasonable and objective standard for making an exception to the exclusionary rule that will let us get more evidence in and get more convictions. So that is why I am opposed to the amendment, and I certainly understand there are Members on the other side that think somehow this whole exclusionary rule debate is going to violate the fourth amendment and do away with it. It does no such thing. The particular provisions we are proposing today have been in existence for quite a number of years in two Federal circuits, and I have never heard anybody come forward and complain that there has been some unreasonable search and seizure, the police have been abusing this in those jurisdictions.”