Court Opinion

ID: 9426585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:18:20.008126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.933393
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall concurs,
dissenting.
I adhere to my view that the exclusionary rule is a necessary and inherent constitutional ingredient of the protections of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 355-367 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting), and United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531, 550-562 (1975) (Brennan, J., dissenting). Repetition or elaboration of the reasons supporting that view in this case would serve no useful purpose. My view of the exclusionary rule would, of course, require an affirmance of the Court of Appeals. Today’s decisions in this case and in Stone v. Powell, post, p. 465, continue the Court’s “business of slow strangulation of the rule,” 422 U. S., at 561. But even accepting the proposition that deterrence of police misconduct is the only purpose served by the exclusionary rule, as my Brother Stewart apparently does, his dissent persuasively demonstrates the error of today’s result. I dissent.