Many people have a fundamental conceptual problem with understanding the exclusionary rule: it only applies to incriminating evidence. They would, presumably, support a (non-sensical) rule that excluded non-incriminating evidence seized during an illegal search, but they believe that if incriminating evidence is found, how can a search be illegal? It would, of course, serve no constitutional purpose to exclude from trial evidence that has no bearing on a defendant’s guilt. The issue is to help those who stumble over this fact understand why courts created the exclusionary rule. One can start by not calling an illegal search a “technical violation” or “technical mistake.” We do not consider government’s seizure of a private residence without compensation to be a technical violation of the due process clause, or banning of peaceful political speech to be a technical violation of the First Amendment.

Questions:

1. How can it possibly make sense to exclude legitimate evidence because a police officer made a mistake in getting a warrant? Aren’t we letting the criminal go free because the constable blundered?

2. Does the Supreme Court think that all police want to abuse the average citizen?

3. I haven’t done anything wrong and am not worried about the police “smashing in my doors in the middle of the night.” Why should I care about the exclusionary rule?

4. The difference between a lawful search or arrest and an unlawful one is often a warrant. What is so special about a warrant?

5. What might happen if there was no requirement for probable cause?

6. What is wrong with being searched if you don’t have anything to hide?

7. How many people go free because of the exclusionary rule?