Taking Back Our Streets Act of 1995: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, First Session, on H.R. 3 ... January 19 and 20, 1995Distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche. |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
abuse appeal apply block grant BOLELYN capital Chairman claim committed committee constitutional convicted cops costs counsel crime bill crime prevention criminal justice system death penalty death row defendants district attorney drug courts effect evidence exclusionary rule Federal court Federal judges filing firearm Fourth Amendment funding going good-faith exception habeas corpus hearing HEINEMAN incarceration inmates issue JACKSON LEE January 19 Job Corps law enforcement law enforcement officers lawsuits legislation litigation LOFGREN LUNGREN mayor MCCANN MCCOLLUM neighborhood offenders percent person petition Philadelphia police officers prison cap problem procedures proceedings prosecution prosecutors question reasonable mistake exception reform require restitution SCHIFF SCHMIDT SCHUMER SCOTT sentence statute street subcommittee subsection Supreme Court Thank tion trial U.S. Supreme Court United United States Code victims violent crimes Virginia warrant warrantless YACKLE youth
Popular passages
Page 353 - Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.
Page 381 - The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it— the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter ! — all his force dares not cross* the threshold of the ruined tenement...
Page 347 - There are those who say, as did Justice (then Judge) Cardozo, that under our constitutional exclusionary doctrine "[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.
Page 425 - What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun ? Or fester like a sore — And then run ? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over — like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode?
Page 351 - has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.
Page 355 - We conclude that the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.
Page 301 - The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.
Page 376 - provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate, which is a more reliable safeguard against improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer 'engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime...
Page 373 - ... also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right newly recognized by the Wolf case. In short, the admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf could not consistently tolerate denial of its most important constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.
Page 454 - It would be hard to imagine that society could find a higher yield for a dollar of investment than that found in preschool programs for its at-risk children. Every $1.00 spent on early prevention and intervention can save $4.75 in the costs of remedial education, welfare, and crime further down the road.