Court Opinion

ID: 9433686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:41:02.939095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:43.441030
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
Justice Souter has explained why the deterrent function of the exclusionary rule is implicated as much by a parole revocation proceeding as by a conventional criminal trial. I agree with that explanation. I add this comment merely to endorse Justice Stewart’s conclusion that the “rule is constitutionally required, not as a ‘right’ explicitly incorporated in the fourth amendment’s prohibitions, but as a remedy necessary to ensure that those prohibitions are observed in fact.” *370Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. Ohio and Beyond: The Origins, Development and Future of the Exclusionary Rule in Search-and-Seizure Cases, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1865, 1389 (1983). See also Arizona v. Evans, 514 U. S. 1, 18-19, and n. 1 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796, 828, and n. 22 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 978, and n. 37 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting).