Provide responses of 150-250 words for each of the narratives below.
1. Donald Dripps Model of the contingent exclusionary rule centers on facts and truth in terms of police misconduct and around a hybrid exclusionary rule. Traditionally the exclusionary rule is "[what] makes evidence inadmissible in court if law enforcement officers obtained it by means forbidden by the Constitution, by statute or by court rules" (Oaks, 1970, p. 665). The hybrid model suggested by Dripps is that the police are responsible for any misconduct; in terms of monetary value "[what] Dripps proposes is a type of hybrid constitutional remedy, which he terms a contingent exclusionary rule, which combines the exclusionary rule with a monetary damages type of remedy" ("Article Critique", n.d.). Police should abide by rules that do not put the public in jeopardy in terms of loss of property or life. Law enforcement should pay damages.
It would deter law enforcement agents from violating laws if they were held personally responsible for violating the fourth amendment. When police act without reason and damages follow their actions, there needs to be a reprimand. This would work in the real world. For example if law enforcement were to violate the fourth amendment and enter by force into a suspect's premises without a warrant or probable cause, it would be up to law enforcement to pay for damages. This holds law enforcement accountable for their own actions, in hopes of deterring law enforcement agents from violating the fourth amendment.
In contrast to the Dripps model, the exclusionary rule implies that there is less of a punishment if law enforcement officers violate the fourth amendment. The Dripps model suggests that the government provides compensation for damages for fourth amendment violations, in restorative justice the same application applies. Police officers should be responsible for damages; just as criminals should be when they unlawfully cause damage, James 2:10 states "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (ESV).
In answering the question of whether or not contingent suppression and restorative justice are compatible, it would appear that they are.
2. There is no doubt that this is a hot topic of debate in our criminal justice community. Critics from either side argue the exclusion or inclusion of evidence obtained improperly or in violation of a person's constitutional rights. There is also no doubt that there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides. To add fuel to the fire, "the Supreme court seems to have adopted both positions, by continuing to suppress tainted evidence in the government's case-in-chief while also recognizing a host of exceptions to the exclusionary rule" (Dripps, 2001).
As I understand the article by Donald Dripps, his model would work as follows in the real world. If an officer were found collecting evidence in violation of a person's constitutional rights, rather than allowing the guilty to go free by outright suppressing the evidence. The contingent suppression rule would kick in and allow the courts to have a new option, they could fine the officer's agency and only upon refusal to pay damages, would the person be allowed to go free. "Viewed as the gateway to damages, rather than a roadblock to prosecution, the exclusionary rule would seem far less draconian" (Dripps, 2001). The concept would force an agency to train their officers better and also hold them accountable for violating a person's rights.
I do think this that this concept has some restorative justice philosophies in mind. Officers and their agencies have a responsibility to uphold the laws and protect the citizens of this great nation. If an officer is purposely obtaining evidence in violation of another's rights, they are little better than the person who committed the crime in the first place. They have a have a job to do and need to work within the system in order to do it. Otherwise our system will fall apart. Proverbs 21:8 says, "The way of the guilty man is crooked, but as for the pure, his conduct is upright." There needs to be accountability.
On the other hand, this concept sounds a lot like extortion to me, pay the damages or the guilty goes free. There are already exceptions to the rule on the books. If an officer, acting in good faith, didn't knowingly or inadvertently broke a rule of law. How can we hold them accountable in this fashion? I think that this would just open the door up to more and more red tape and litigation. This is not helping the victim of crime in anyway and does little to change whether or not the criminal is being held accountable. I also have a problem paying damages to a criminal.