Good-Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule
Your editorial (Feb. 26), “Good Faith, Bad Idea,” illustrates how the manipulation of terminology and the articulation of unfounded conjecture can be used to create the impression that constitutional principles have been compromised and that some gross injustice has taken place.
The editorial challenged the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in the case of Maryland vs. Garrison. The court ruled that heroin seized during a warrantless search of a Baltimore man’s apartment could be used against him because the police had made a “good-faith” mistake in searching his home by accident. The warrant under which the search was conducted was for an adjoining apartment that shared a common entry with the apartment that was searched.
The editorial insinuates that police officers are prone to act irresponsibly and that they constantly seek ways in which to violate the constitutional rights of our citizens.
The officers had probable cause to search a particular residence, had presented that information to a court and obtained a search warrant. Granted, once they were inside the common entry way, they mistakenly searched the wrong apartment, but the officer’s actions were not consistent with what could be considered “unreasonable search and seizure.”
To begin with, the word unreasonable is not a legal term, so we must rely upon its common usage to understand its meaning. As defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary, unreasonable means, “showing little sense or judgment” or “not rational.” The officers in this case clearly conducted their investigation as any prudent individual would have done under the same circumstances.
The safeguards embodied in the Fourth Amendment provide the necessary tools to insure protection against illegal search and seizure. The exclusionary rule, which is not a part of the Constitution, was created by the courts supposedly to punish officers who violated Fourth Amendment rights as they pertain to search and seizure. The exclusionary rule, however, does not in fact address misconduct by individual officers who might conduct illegal searches; it does instead punish the victims of crimes by allowing obviously guilty persons to go free even though evidence of their guilt is clearly before the court.
If an officer’s conduct is in fact inappropriate, then punish the officer. Why reward criminals by setting them free and punish society by allowing criminals additional opportunities to seek out new victims?
The good-faith exception is a step in the right direction to returning the judicial system to a process of searching for the truth rather than for technical imperfections.
SHERMAN BLOCK
Sheriff
Los Angeles County
