Sample Annotated Bibliography on The Exclusionary Rule

The Exclusionary Rule

Bradley, C. (2012). Is the exclusionary rule dead? The Journal of criminal & criminology, 102(1), 1-23.

The article reviews the Herring, Davis and Hudson cases, together with other court cases that have considered the Herring case in their decisions. The article establishes that the U.S Supreme Court has this far not eliminated the exclusionary rule. It concludes that the rule, though limited to some extent, is neither unacceptably constrained nor dead. The article’s author currently works at Indiana University as a professor of law. Before venturing into teaching, he was an attorney in the criminal appellate, U.S justice department, and served as a senior trial attorney. Accordingly, he provides resourceful information in my research paper. The intended audience for this article comprises the people that do not see the essence of the exclusionary rule, and thereby think that it is no longer effective in the courts of law. This article enhances my bibliography by indicating the direction the rule is likely to take in the near future. In particular, the article establishes that majority of the judges are likely to limit the application of the rule when police officers violate the fourth amendment recklessly, knowingly, or even purposefully.

Jones, D. (2012). Hudson v. Michigan and the decline of the exclusionary rule. Police practice and research, 13(3), 282-293.

This article evaluates the evolution of the exclusionary rule and its application in the USA. It demonstrates that the rule has lately become a judicial issue rather a constitutional issue. Like Bradley, the article’s author establishes that the application of this rule has been narrowed. In addition, the article’s author claims that although the rule has been an important one in U.S jurisprudence, the rule has been under constant attack. The article’s author currently serves at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh as a professor of public affairs. He has deep interest in the U.S Fourth amendment. For this reason, he can provide credible information on the exclusionary rule, worth including in my research. Apart from this fact, this article enhances my understanding of the exclusionary rule by delving deeper into the issue and providing examples that I can relate to and understand easily. The intended audiences of this article are the people that downplay the role of exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings.

Mulqueen, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of the exclusionary rule in removal proceedings. St. John’s law review, 82, 1157-1201.

This article evaluates the role that exclusionary rule plays in removal proceedings. After an in-depth analysis of the issue, with the help of the INS v. Lopez-Mendoza case, the article concludes that the absence of this rule in the immigration department would enable officials in this department to disrespect the fourth amendment, thereby undermining the constitution. Like Bradley and Jones, the article’s author claims that although the exclusionary rule has been praised at some points, it has been criticized since its adoption in 1914. The article’s author is a member of various law professional bodies; he works at St. John’s University School of law and is an experienced attorney. Given the scope of this article and the critical role it has played in evaluating the exclusionary rule, this article is an important one in my research. This is in relation to the fact that the article does not only show the implications of excluding the rule from removal proceedings, but it also depicts its importance to each one of us. Its intended audience comprise the people who think that excluding the rule from the immigration department would make the U.S safer than retaining the rule in the immigration department.

Re, R. (2014). The due process exclusionary rule. Harvard law review, 127(7), 1885-1966.

This article evaluates the current challenges that the exclusionary rule faces. The article establishes that the rule faces various challenges at this age of digital surveillance. In spite of this fact, the article argues that the modified rule should be defended not as a product of the Fourth Amendment, but as a product of the due process of the law. Like the other articles in this bibliography, the article’s author acknowledges the fact that the exclusionary rule is under attack and that it should be defended. The article’s author is currently an Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard University. Previously, he served as a program attorney in the U.S. criminal appellate section and at various other levels, before becoming an assistant professor. Accordingly, he is conversant with the law and the exclusionary rule in particular. The intended audience of this article comprises the people who disregard the exclusionary rule. In terms of contribution to my bibliography topic, this article highlights the importance of defending the exclusionary rule.

References

Bradley, C. (2012). Is the exclusionary rule dead? The Journal of criminal & criminology, 102(1), 1-23.

Jones, D. (2012). Hudson v. Michigan and the decline of the exclusionary rule. Police practice and research, 13(3), 282-293.

Mulqueen, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of the exclusionary rule in removal proceedings. St. John’s law review, 82, 1157-1201.

Re, R. (2014). The due process exclusionary rule. Harvard law review, 127(7), 1885-1966.