Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why are money damages less of a check than the exclusionary rule? Given the number of times it's violated, it's not like cops are giving it the full weight it deserves?
|
I can think of at least three reasons. First, the money damages wouldn't be coming out of the individual officers' pockets. And I think we can both agree that government isn't too terribly disturbed by the fact that is has to spend money to get nothing of value in return.
Second, the defendant who is convicted and sentenced to die doesn't have much use for money damages.
Third, the rule isn;t for the benefit of the defendant per se; it's for the benefit of all society. If the cops can bust down anybody's door, and search at will, and the only rememdy is money damages, then I ought to be able to sue the gov't every time they violate the 4th Amendment, because I am just as aggrieved as any other member of society.
