Source: http://stranipravnizivot.rs/index.php/SPZ/article/view/721
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:02:03+00:00

Document:
U Republici Srbiji, došlo je do krupnih promena u sprovođenju krivične istrage. Glavni zadatak prilikom pravnog uređenja krivičnog postupka u svakoj demokratskoj i pravnoj državi jeste uspostava optimalnog odnosa između dveju suprotstavljenih težnji u krivičnom postupku. Jedna od njih teži njegovoj delotvornosti i punoj efektivnosti, a druga nastoji onemogućiti prekomerna i nepotrebna ograničenja prava i sloboda građana. U ovom radu primenom metoda komparacije i korelacije, na osnovu analize sadržaja pravnih akata iz adverzijanog pravnog sistema istražujemo noveliranje i primenu pretresa stana na osnovu saznanja iz policijskog izvora, u svetlu tužilačke istrage i mogućnosti ili nemogućnosti izdavanja naloga za pretres od strane suda. Istraživanje osnovanosti pretresa stana na osnovu saznanja iz operativnih izvora policije, do sada u našoj teoriji nije sprovođeno. Kao polaznu tačku uzimamo analizu formalno-pravnog i institucionalnog okvira unutar koga je definisan problem i predmet istraživanja. Odluka da napišemo jedan tekst o upotrebi policijskih saznanja za dobijanje naloga radi preduzimanja pretresa stana, nametnulo se nakon promena koje su učinjene procesnim krivičnim zakonikom u Srbiji. Rad sa jedne strane istražuje domete primene saznanja iz policijskog izvora u zasnivanju materijalnog i pravnog osnova za dobijanje naredbe za ulazak u stan i vršenje pretresa, u novom konstruisanom adverzijalnom dokaznom postupku u Srbiji. Sa druge strane, ukazuje na nužnost donošenja Direktive kojom bi tužilac propisao šta je operativni izvor i kriminalistička operacija.
Amar, A.R., The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles, Yale University Press, New Haven 1997.
Amar, A.R., “Fourth Amendment first principles”,Harvard Law Review, Vol.107, 1994, 757-819.
Barnett, R. E., “Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice”, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 32, 1983, 937–985.
Bransdorfer, M.S., “Miranda Right-to-Counsel Violations and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine”,Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 62, 1986, 1061-1100.
Davies, T. Y., “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, 3/1999, 547-750.
Dressler, J., Understanding Criminal Procedure, LexisNexis, Newark 20023.
Dripps, D., “The case for the contingent exclusionary rule”, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 38, 1/2001, 5-23.
Gaines, L.K., LeRoy Miller, R., Criminal justice in action, The Core. Belmont, CA, Thomson / Wadsworth, 2006.
Gittins, J. R., “Excluding the Exclusionary Rule: Extending the Rationale of Hudson v. Michigan to Evidence Seized During Unauthorized Nighttime Searches”, BYU Law Review, 2/2007.
Harkins, C. A., “The Pinocchio Defense Witness Impeachment Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Combating a Defendant’s Right to Use with Impunity the Perjurious Testimony of Defense Witnesses”, University of Illinois Law Review, 1990, 375–473.
Heffernan, W. C., “On Justifying Fourth Amendment Exclusion”, Wisconsin Law Review, 1989, 1193–1254.
Jackson, H. A., “Arizona v. Evans: expanding exclusionary rule exceptions and contracting Fourth Amendment protection”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 86, 4/1996, 1201-1227.
Jones, D. S., „Application of the exclusionary rule to bar use of illegally seized evidence in civil school disciplinary proceedings“,Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, Vol. 52, 1997, 375-397.
Kamisar, Y., “Wolf and Lustig Ten Years Later: Illegal State Evidence in State and Federal Courts”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 43, 1958.
Kamisar, Y., „In defense of the search and seizure exclusionary rule“, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 26, 2003.
Killian, B.J, “United States v. Crews: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree-A New Wrinkle”, Idaho Law Review, Vol.18, 1982, 151.
Klarman, M. J., “The racial origins of modern criminal procedure”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 99, 1/2000, 48-97.
Lash, K.T., “James Madison’s Celebrated Report of 1800: The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment”, George Washington Law Review, Vol. 74, 2/2006, 165-200.
Liptak, A. Supreme Court Edging Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling, N. Y. TIMES, Jan. 31, 2009, at A1.
O’Laughlin, M. J., “Exigent Circumstances: Circumscribing the Exclusionary Rule in Response to 9/11”, University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, Vol. 70, 2001.
Pitler, S. E., “The Origin and Development of Washington’s Independent Exclusionary Rule: Constitutionally Compelled Remedy”, Washington Law Review, Vol. 61, 1986.
Rader, R. R., “Legislating a Remedy for the Fourth Amendment”, South Texas Law Journal, Vol. 23, 1982.
Roots, R. “The Originalist Case for the Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule“, Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 45, 2010, 1-66.
Schauer, F., “On the supposed jury-dependence of evidence law”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, 1/2006, 165-202.
Schrock, T.S., Welsh, R.C., “Up from Calandra: The Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Requirement”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 59, 1974.
Steinberg, D. E, “The Original Understanding of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures”, Florida Law Review, Vol. 56, 2004, 1052-1096.
Stewart, P., “The road to Mapp v. Ohio and beyond: the origins, development and future of the exclusionary rule in search-and-seizure cases”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 83, 1983.
Stribopoulos, J., „Lessons from the pupil: A Canadian solution to the American exclusionary rule debate“,Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 22, 1999.
Stuntz, W. J., “Warrants and Fourth Amendment Remedies”, Virginia Law Review, 1991, 881-943.
Tinsley, P., Kinsella, S., Block, W., “In Defense of Evidence and Against the Exclusionary Rule: A Libertarian Approach”, Southern University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2004, 63-80.
Webster, A. T, “Protecting Society’s Rights While Preserving Fourth Amendment Protections: An Alternative to the Exclusionary Rule”, South Texas Law Journal, Vol. 23, 1982.
Wilson, B.P, “The Fourth Amendment as More Than a Form of Words: The View from the Founding”, in: The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding (ed. Eugene W. Hickock, Jr), University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1991.
Wright, D.R., “How to Improve Military Search and Seizure Law”, Military Law Review, Vol. 116, 1987.
Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the RS], br. 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013 45/2013, 55/2014.
Ustav Republike Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS [Official Gazette of the RS], br. 98/2006.
Boggs v. Vandyke, 3 Del. (3 Harr.) 288, 288 (1840).
Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996-V.
Colvert v. Moore, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bail.) 549, 549 (S.C. 1830).
Findlay v. Pruitt, 9 Port. 195, 200 (Ala. 1839).
Garvin v. Blocker, 4 S.C.L. (2 Brev.) 157, 158 (S.C. 1807).
Hall v. Hall, 6 G. & J. 386, 409 (Md. 1834).
Hernandez v. State, 60 S.W.3d 106, 112-14, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
State of Tennessee v. Michael T. Shelby, John H. Gasaway, Judge, No. M2011-01289-CCA-R3 Cd- Filed June 19, 2013.
Lawson v. Buzines, 3 Del. (3 Harr.) 416, 416 (1842).
Perry v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63737/00, 26 September 2002.
Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 116, ECHR 2006-IX.
Randall v. Henry, 5 Stew. & P. 367 (Ala. 1834).
Reed v. Legg, 2 Del. (2 Harr.) 173, 176 (1837).
Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 127, ECHR 2008.
Silverthorne Lumber Co.v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 1920.
Simpson v. Smith, 2 Del. Cas. 285 (1817).
State v. McDonald, 14 N.C. (3 Dev.) 468, 471-72 (1832).
V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.24888/94, § 69, ECHR 1999-IX.
Virginia v. Moore, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1603-04, 2008.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 79
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 116
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 127
 v. 
 v. 

V. 
 § 69
 v.