Pro		Con
Chief Justice Bird's dissent in the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision to eliminate California's exclusionary rule, which prohibited the use of illegally seized evidence in criminal trials, was a vote to uphold an essential civil right that had withstood the test of more that 30 years of case law.1		Chief Justice Bird's dissent in the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision to eliminate California's exclusionary rule, a rule that prohibited the use of illegally seized evidence in criminal trials, was indicative of her bias in favor of the criminally accused.2

AMA Commentary

The exclusionary rule commands that, where evidence has been obtained in violation of the privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the evidence must be excluded at trial. Evidence which is obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure is excluded from evidence under the Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, and this rule is applicable to the states. (Mapp v. Ohio, 376 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct., 1684, 6L.Ed. 2d 1981)3 While the current United States Supreme Court has broadened the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct legal search and seizure operations, some state Supreme Courts, including those in Utah, Montana,4 New York, Alaska, and Mississippi, have limited their scope.5

---

¹ Los Angeles Daily Journal, editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, February 7, 1985, p. 4.
² Los Angeles Daily Journal, editorial reprinted from the Los Angeles Daily News, February 7, 1985, p. 4.
³ Black's Law Dictionary, (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN), 1986 edition.
⁴ Toobin, Jeffrey, "Better than Burger," The New Republic, March 4, 1985,p. 10.
⁵ New York Times, "State Courts Surpass U.S. Bench in Cases on Rights of Individuals," by Robert Pear, May 4, 1986, I:1.