More on the "Exclusionary Rule"

Back on Thursday I posted on "When Cops Forget." This question of the exclusionary rule have been running around the Internet for a few days (Herring vs United States). Here is a solution recommended by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. Here is the proposal of Randy Barnett.

I proposed replacing the exclusionary rule with an administrative "court of claims" type system of monetary compensation to victims of police misconduct, whether the claimants are innocent or guilty of committing crimes. Most importantly, it would be police departments, and indirectly taxpayers, and not individual police officers who would be liable for making compensation. If the public wants the whatever increased security results from inadequately constrained police searches and seizures, it can pay for this by compensating the victims of this behavior. If it does not like paying compensation, it can use political mechanisms to impose greater constraints on police conduct. Ultimately, supervisors have a much greater influence on how officers behave than do judges disposing of some future prosecution.

I think the last sentence captures something important. The supervisors are the ones who will influence individual police officers the most.

The other important thing is that money talks. If we are going to allow the police to abuse the Constitution from time to time we need to compensate those who are being abused in terms of protections we are supposed to be offered by our Constitution. That means putting a little more money into Lowell's budget to cover situations where there are violations of the Constitution, even just technical ones, even when the police find indications of crime as a result of the illegal search.

How do you vote?

Regards -- Cliff