The NY Times has an article today about the suppression of evidence in criminal trials based on police officers’ violation of a suspect’s Fourth amendment rights. I did not realize this before reading the article, but the US is the only country in the world that excludes all evidence that a suspect can show was obtained in violation of their fourth amendment rights. The article points to Canada, Britain, and Australia which all use some version of a balancing test weighing the police conduct against the gravity of the crime committed. The article also goes through the history of suppression, which I found to be fascinating. The suppression of evidence in federal cases began in 1914, and was not extended to the states until 1961 in a decision by the Warren Court.
As part of my judicial internship this summer I am working on a narcotics case with a suppression motion that has a chance of succeeding. I’ve struggled with the case a lot emotionally and intellectually. An allegedly significant distributor of Oxycontin in Vermont is seeking to suppress all evidence obtained from two searches; one conducted by a TSA officer at an airport and a second conducted by two police officers at the airport. The evidence obtained that evening was likely the basis for all other investigations of this suspect and his brother. One interesting thing to note about the suppression of evidence is that the brother of this suspect can not have this evidence suppressed in his trial because his constitutional rights were not violated.
Part of what I have struggled with on an emotional level is how on earth can you decide that its a good idea to let a big drug dealer (or any other serious criminal) go just because the police had a little less than reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop? And of course the intellectual or flip side of that question is that if we’re so concerned about police behavior (which we should be–one of my other cases this summer is a Civil Rights action against a police officer who has a number of prior fourth amedment violations) why on earth do we allow the evidence to be used against the brother?
The article did not help me figure this out either way, but it comforted me to know that other people question the wisdom of excluding all of this evidence. In the end, I think I’d rather have a strict rule that holds police to the highest level of behavior possible, since they have so much power. Any other thoughts? I’m not wedded to one side or the other on this and would love to hear from other people.
I think that it is critcally important to the system of justice that we have the strict rule that holds police to the highest level of behavior. If this results in some criminals going free, then so be it. It is not okay to put the question of when or how it is okay to violate a person’s constitutionally guaranteed rights into the hands of law enforcement. While in most cases the person is likely guilty, law enforcement does not and should not have the power to step outside of the law. It becomes a problem with grey areas and slippery slopes, leading to renegade justice. One would (idealistically) hope that if a criminal slipped through the cracks due to unlawful policing, that in the future the police would be more careful to follow the law, and to train their incoming police to do the same. I realize that in practice this standard is likely too high to ever be met 100% of the time, but in my opinion it is more important to have a clear and fair system. If the system is broken, fix the system. But don’t make exceptions, for then the system becomes as unlawful as the criminals which it is designed to stop.
All that said, last night I watched “Gone Baby, Gone” which is (SPOILER ALERT) a movie in which well meaning police kidnap a child to remove her from a bad family situation. At the end the moral dilema is presented to the private detective looking for her, to call the police to have the child returned to her own family, or leave her in the paradise of support and love which she has been kidnapped to. I strongly sided with returning her to her family for these same reasons- if the system is broken leading children to be left behind in bad situations, we must fix the system. We cannot simply pick and choose the people we remove from the bad situation. Even if it means (as it does in the movie) that one child is left in a worse situation, allowing renegade (though well meaning) justice cannot be supported in a stable democracy.