http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/welcome_to_the.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:33:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/welcome_to_the.html/comment-page-1#comment-61509 FXKLM Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:34:09 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/12/welcome-to-the-blogosphere-3.html#comment-61509 That's some very poor reasoning. If improperly gathered evidence is excluded, that creates an incentive to challenge the constitutionality of a search. Of course we would expect the number of challenges to rise. It makes absolutely no sense to use the number of constitutional challenges as a proxy for the number of unconstitutional searches. That’s some very poor reasoning. If improperly gathered evidence is excluded, that creates an incentive to challenge the constitutionality of a search. Of course we would expect the number of challenges to rise. It makes absolutely no sense to use the number of constitutional challenges as a proxy for the number of unconstitutional searches.

]]> http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/12/welcome_to_the.html/comment-page-1#comment-61508 Daniel J. Solove Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:29:39 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2005/12/welcome-to-the-blogosphere-3.html#comment-61508 Joel's blog is interesting, but the post you quote strikes me as relying on a very dubious empirical premise. Raising a Fourth Amendment challenge has almost become standard operating procedure for defense attorneys. Most challenges fail, but they still are brought. I might be missing something, but this strikes me as an invalid way to measure the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule. Joel’s blog is interesting, but the post you quote strikes me as relying on a very dubious empirical premise. Raising a Fourth Amendment challenge has almost become standard operating procedure for defense attorneys. Most challenges fail, but they still are brought. I might be missing something, but this strikes me as an invalid way to measure the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule.

]]>