1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

I know that the body here tonight does not want
to rearque what was just said, and I will not do so, but I
feel that this is a subject which should be considered very
closely, contrary to what Judge llenderson said in his final
renarks. Thi is not just a rule of evidence. It is a
rule or a principle which effectuates the right of privacy.
In the 200 ye-srs since the 4th Amendment has existed, there
has been no rther means devised by judges or people to
effectuate tac 4th Amendment other than the exclusionary
rule, other than the rules that say that at least the Courts
will not entertain in evidence matters which are seized in
violation of the 4th Amendment.
Now, since the case of Mappe versus Ohio,
which, as Judge Henderson said, was a five-four decision,
I dare say this is going to remain the law of the land
for time immemorial anyway. It has been adopted in much
lesser margin cases many times since. The exclusionary
rule has been a nrt of the constitutional rights of the
people.
You and I have a constitutional right nt
Jiflve evidence intr uce against us, not to have the