Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 416

524US2

Unit: $U90

[09-15-00 14:33:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 357 (1998)

371

Souter, J., dissenting

tional right of the party aggrieved,” United States v. Leon,
468 U. S. 897, 906 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted),
“[w]hether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately im-
posed in a particular case . . . is ‘an issue separate from the
question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party
seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.’ ”
Ibid. (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 223 (1983)).
The exclusionary rule does not, therefore, mandate the ex-
clusion of illegally acquired evidence from all proceedings or
against all persons, United States v. Calandra, supra, at 348,
and we have made clear that the rule applies only in “those
instances where its remedial objectives are thought most ef-
ﬁcaciously served,” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 11 (1995).
Only then can the deterrent value of applying the rule to a
given class of proceedings be seen to outweigh its price, in-
cluding “the loss of often probative evidence and all of the
secondary costs that ﬂow from the less accurate or more
cumbersome adjudication that therefore occurs.”
INS v.
Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U. S. 1032, 1041 (1984); see also United
States v. Janis, 428 U. S. 433, 454 (1976); United States v.
Calandra, supra, at 349–350.

Because we have found the requisite efﬁcacy when the rule
is applied in criminal trials, see Elkins v. United States, 364
U. S. 206 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, supra; Weeks v. United
States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914), the deterrent effect of the evi-
dentiary limitation upon prosecution is a baseline for evalu-
ating the degree (or incremental degree) of deterrence that
could be expected from extending the exclusionary rule to
other sorts of cases, see INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, supra.
Thus, we have thought that any additional deterrent value
obtainable from applying the rule in civil tax proceedings,
see United States v. Janis, supra, habeas proceedings, see
Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 (1976), and grand jury proceed-
ings, see United States v. Calandra, supra, would be so mar-
ginal as to be outweighed by the incremental costs.