January 28, 2009
Conservatives
have long argued against the exclusionary rule, which holds that
evidence obtained through unconstitutional police procedures can't
be used against a defendant at trial. But as Senior Editor Radley
Balko writes, if police officers can make a case against someone
using evidence they obtained illegally, what's to stop them from
disregarding the Fourth Amendment entirely?
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.