Is it time to overrule the Exclusionary Rule?

We are the only country that automatically excludes any evidence that was tainted in the process of
retrieval -- faulty search warrant; questionable probable cause; unlawful search; etc.
The purpose of exclusion when it was introduced by the Supreme Court, first in
Weeks v. U.S. and then again in Mapp v. Ohio, was to deter police
from constitutional violations, specifically those involving the 4th
Amendment. This issue is discussed in an excellent article by Adam Liptak.

The Exclusionary Rule is applied no matter how serious the offense nor how major/minor
the police error actually is or even the value of the evidence. Other countries allow a judge
to decide if the error is grievous enough to outweigh other factors.

Next October the United States Supreme Court will hear Herring v. U.S.
which is an exclusionary rule case that involves poor record keeping by another police
department that led to an arrest involving drugs and guns. Many court watchers
believe that the current Court will continue to add exceptions so that the rule will not
automatically apply in all instances and actually apply in fewer and fewer.

The question has become one of costs and balances or to use a quote from Justice Benjamin Cardozo
should “The criminal ... go free because the constable has blundered.” ?

The United States Supreme Court first applied the exclusionary rule to the federal courts 94 years ago
in Weeks v. United States (1914). During the Warren Court era the Rule was made applicable
to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Do you think it should remain a viable rule? Does its benefit outweigh its cost?