Research and read the article by Donald Dripps entitled �The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule,� from the American Criminal Law Review (Winter, 2001).
-Based on the article and your current level of exposure to the topic of constitutional criminal procedure, outline your position as to how Dripps� model would work in the real world.
-Refer to Dr. Kahlib Fischer�s presentation in Module/Week 1. State whether Dripps� Model of �Contingent Suppression� is in any way compatible with restorative justice. If not, how could it be made more compatible?
Contingent Exclusionary Rule
In real world, Donald Dripps model would work as a constitutional remedy that integrates exclusionary regulation with financial damages conventionally related to tort allegations. Courts should begin to test suppression orders contingent based on police failure to pay for damages as determined by courts (Dripps, 2001). In addition, compulsory use of exclusionary rule can be used to not only prevent but also punish deliberate breach of constitutional restrictions. However, a number of seizure and search breaches fail to meet deliberate violations, may be due to police obliviousness or unusual instances, as such contingent exclusionary rule applies to many criminal cases. To some extent, the Contingent Suppression is compatible with restorative justice. To start with, it acts for the best interest of the judicial system since truth is well fostered. This due to the fact that police and judges would not hide evidence to get a criminal sentence when there is practical Fourth Amendment breach that can result in a suppression order, particularly, exclusionary rule in certain conditions fail to cost convictions the Fourth Amendment never forbid. The cost is simply decreased or even eliminated (Dripps, 2001).
Moreover, the tort remedy protects the innocent as well the guilty from unconstitutional seizure and searches. This means tort remedy serves as a deterrent from illegal search and seizure. Both local and state administrations are liable to Forth Amendment breaches, can demand while enforcing training programs for law enforcement bodies in their jurisdiction. The constitutional remedy is important in encouraging ethical police officers and judicial process to be effective. On the other hand, the courts may set damages and thus eliminate legal aspects from politics, especially; contingent exclusionary rule addresses political issues since the federal courts would set damages. By and large, using exclusionary rule as legal remedy will be mooted in way that protects the Constitution for Fourth Amendment breaches following the growing need to ban exclusionary rule.
References
Dripps, D. (2001). The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule. The American Criminal Law Review.
