Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Probably (1), if you would make the system viable. I am waiting for someone opposed to the Exclusionary Rule to propose eliminating sovereign immunity and offering punitive damages for police violation of the fourth and fifth amendments.
|
I would do both if you're offering damages in lieu of the exclusionary rule. It wouldn't be an adequate substitute otherwise (I thought that was assumed from our long-ago discussion on the issue).
On punis, you'd have to have some sort of limits on it--heightened showing, pattern and practice, etc. But, yeah.
If you care to search (and I'm sure you don't any more than I do), I proposed this not-novel idea the last time Spanky raised the issue. That is, if a municipal government or state were to adopt a rule that waived sovereign immunity and allowed damages suits (against the police department or the individual cop, who would undoubtedly be indemnified anyway) for illegal searches and seizures, I believe it could then argue in court that evidence illegally seized should not be excluded under the fourth amendment.
Of course, no one will adopt that scheme because it will monetize and make transparent the costs of shoddy police work.
