Opinion ID: 842413
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: observations

Text: This Court has previously acknowledged the very high cost of the exclusionary rule. People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523, 540, 682 N.W.2d 479 (2004); see also People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488, 500 n. 9, 668 N.W.2d 602 (2003). When suppression occurs, the prosecutor on behalf of the people is deprived of essential evidence in the presentation of his or her case, the fact-finder is denied access to potentially relevant facts and information, the justice system is impeded in its ability to discern the truth about wrongdoing, and the people must suffer within their communities persons who have harmed others and gone unpunished for their conduct. As Justice Corrigan has observed, by denying the fact-finder access to evidence, the exclusionary rule impedes, rather than promotes, the truth-seeking function of the judiciary and thereby hinders public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. Goldston, supra at 540 n. 9, 682 N.W.2d 479. The criminal trial regrettably must proceed as though the dead body in the basement did not exist, as though the illegal firearm under the sofa was never really there, and as though the incendiary materials in the garage were merely a figment of one's imagination. Goldston, supra at 545, 682 N.W.2d 479 (Markman, J., concurring). Given that there is no more important function of government than ensuring domestic tranquility and protecting people from violent predators, the costs of the exclusionary rule are extraordinarily high. I do not favor this rule, for I do not believe that it is required by the constitution. Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court has mandated this rule and evidence that is illegally seized must be suppressed. And suppressed means suppressed; it does not mean that courts may characterize evidence as suppressed while, in fact, relying upon that evidence to support its own forfeiture. While I too might wish that suppression of evidence could be less painful to the justice system, it is precisely because of its painfulness that I, as well as others in the majority, have been so concerned about the rule for so long. Where evidence has been illegally obtained, the rule of suppression requires that the legal system be deprived of even the most credible evidence, including whatever implications can be drawn from its surrounding circumstances. The majority alleviates the costs of suppression, but only by transforming suppression into something other than what it must be.