Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Historically, the only remedies for unconstitutional searches and seizures were “tort suits” and “self-help.” Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 195 L. Ed. 2d 400 (2016). The exclusionary rule-the practice of deterring illegal searches and seizures by suppressing evidence at criminal trials-did not exist. No such rule existed in “Roman Law, Napoleonic Law or even the Common Law of England.” Burger, Who Will Watch the Watchman? 14 Am. U. L. Rev. 1 (1964). And the Supreme Court did not adopt the federal exclusionary rule until the 20th century. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, T.D. 1964 (1914). As late as 1949, nearly two-thirds of the States did not have an exclusionary rule. See Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 29, 69 S. Ct. 1359, 93 L. Ed. 1782 (1949). Those States, as then-Judge Cardozo famously explained, did not understand the logic of a rule that allowed “[t]he criminal . . . to go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 21, 150 N. E. 585, 587 (1926).

The Founders would not ...

Register or login to access full content