1、中文 2045字 ,1250单词， 6500英文字符 出处： Jones D M. Hudson v. Michigan and the decline of the exclusionary ruleJ. Police Practice and Research, 2012, 13(3): 282-293. Hudson v. Michigan and the decline of the exclusionary rule David M. Jones* Department of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshko
2、sh, WI, USA Although the exclusionary rule has been an important part of American jurisprudence for over a century, it has long been under attack. This paper traces the evolution of the doctrine and demonstrat es that, for many years, its impact has been narrowed in its application. The paper conclu
3、des with a concern for its continued viability in the American justice system. Keywords: Fourth Amendment; knock and announce; exclusionary rule; US Supreme Court Introduction The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
4、 and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The words, of course, are stirring, and
5、 imply empathy for citizen rights against the state. They also imply that ones home and ones privacy are important. On the other hand, they are, like words in other amendments, subject to different interpretations. Put another way, The Fourth Amendment, like many provisions of the U.S. Constitution,
6、 is concise and exceedingly ambiguous (Holly, 1997, p. 541). It has also been noted that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches, just unreasonable ones. This raises the question of what constitutes the difference between the two. In this regard, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out: The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an ind
