Show simple item record

The Exclusionary Rule: Is It on Its Way Out? Should It Be?

dc.contributor.authorSlobogin, Christopher, 1951-
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-20T22:29:06Z
dc.date.available2014-10-20T22:29:06Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citation10 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 341 (2013)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/6795
dc.descriptionarticle published in law journalen_US
dc.description.abstractThis symposium, comprising six articles in addition to this one, was triggered by a spate of Supreme Court opinions occurring over the last seven years, all of which raise the two questions in the title to this article (which is also the title of the symposium). Since 1974, when United States v. Calandra definitively established deterrence as the primary objective of the suppression remedy, the Court has nibbled away at the exclusionary rule from a number of different directions. But the Court's decisions in Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Herring v. United States (2009), and Davis v. United States (2011) reveal a Court that is now willing to take much larger bites out of the rule, and perhaps even swallow it whole.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (17 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherOhio State Journal of Criminal Lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshExclusionary rule (Evidence)en_US
dc.titleThe Exclusionary Rule: Is It on Its Way Out? Should It Be?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record