About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1034 (1990-1991)
Search Warrants, Motions to Suppress and Lost Cases: The Effects of the Exclusionary Rule in Seven Jurisdictions

handle is hein.journals/jclc81 and id is 1044 raw text is: 0091-4169/91/8104-1034 THEJOURNA. OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 81, No. 4 Copyright © 1991 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SEARCH WARRANTS, MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND LOST CASES: THE EFFECTS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN SEVEN JURISDICTIONS* CRAIG D. UCHIDA** AND TIMOTHY S. BYNUM*** I. INTRODUCTION Empirical studies that examine the effects of the exclusionary rule on search warrant cases are few and far between. Only a hand- ful of researchers have studied the use of search warrants by law enforcement officers, and even fewer have looked systematically at the effects of the exclusionary sanction on their use. Search warrants have become an important tool in law enforce- ment efforts to curtail illegal drug trafficking. During the late 1980s, a number of police agencies have increased their use of warrants. For example, Minneapolis narcotics detectives executed 123 war- rants in 1987, 383 in 1988 and 425 in 1989. In San Diego, crack abatement detectives executed 143 warrants in 1989, compared to 67 in the previous year. In Denver, a crack task force of sixteen detectives executed 246 search warrants in 1988 and 350 in 1989.1 However, little is known about the results of these warrants gener- ally, in terms of arrests, prosecutions, motions to suppress, or lost cases due to the exclusionary sanction. Questions about the effectiveness and necessity of the exclu- * Prepared under Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0015 from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). The opinions expressed herein are the authors' and not necessarily those of NIJ, Michigan State University, or PERF. The assistance of Dennis Rogan and Michael Wilson is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank three anonymous reviewers who helped to clarify issues, focus our thinking, and make this a better paper. Of course, any errors are ours, and ours alone. ** Ph.D., State University of New York at Albany, 1982; M.A., State University of New York at Albany, 1979; B.A., University of California at San Diego, 1976. *** Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing; Ph.D., Florida State University, 1977; M.S., Florida State University, 1974; A.B., David- son College, 1970. I Private memoranda from the Minneapolis Police Department, San Diego Police Department, and Denver Police Department, on file at the offices of theJournal of Crimi- nal Law and Criminology. 1034

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most