From the Radio Free Michigan archives ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu. ------------------------------------------------ Wall Street Journal, March 8,1995 page a-2 SENATORS WEIGH PLAN, BACKED BY HATCH, TO END 'MIRANDA,' EXCLUSIONARY RULES by Joe Davidson Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON-the senate is mulling potent measures that would cut crime suspects' rights and make the house gop's crime-fighting efforts, which emphasized punishing criminals, look relatively liberal. The senate judiciary committee is considering a provision, offered by chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Ut), that would wipe out "miranda" rules requiring police to read suspects their rights before questioning them. Sen. Hatch favors admitting confessions, if they are voluntary, even if the rules are not read. The bill would also kill the 80-year-old exclusionary rule, which prohibits using illegally obtained material as evidence in court. In its place, Sen. Hatch would allow victims of illegal searches to sue police and collect judgements for actual and punitive damages. Punitive damages would be capped at $10,000. The exclusionary rule is based on the constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures. The rule was created in a 1914 supreme court decision to deter police misconduct, such as bursting into a home without a warrant in search of evidence. Sen. Hatch's bill says evidence that otherwise would be permitted in federal court "shall not be excluded...on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to the constitution". Yale Professor's View After a hearing on the bill yesterday, Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who supports the Hatch measure, said that wording doesn't amount to an effort to override the constitutional provision. The constitution, he said, speaks only to the search, not to using the evidence obtained in court. The hatch bill goes beyond recently passed house legislation that would allow evidence obtained in illegal, warrantless searches to be introduced in court if the police believed they were operating within the law. Also, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the Senate proposal is "even more radical" than the House measure, because it would limit the amount of compensation a person who is a target of an unlawful search could obtain. "Under the house bill, ignorance of the law would become the justification for illegal searches," Sen. Edward Kennedy said. "Under the Hatch bill, no justification at all would be necessary." 'Crucial Evidence of Guilt' Sen. Hatch contends the exclusionary rule "warps the truth-seeking process by withholding evidence from the jury." a criminal is set free, he continued, "because a jury is prevented from considering crucial evidence of guilt." E. Michael McCann, district attorney for Wisconsin's Milwaukee county and Chairman of the American Bar Association's criminal-justice section, said the bill could lead police "to cast caution to the wind and take risks with the constitutional freedoms of our citizens." He and others noted studies indicating the rule has a minimal impact on cases. "If I awake in the night and find a burglar in my home, I fear for the lives of my family and my property," he added. If police enter his home illegally, he said, he fears "for the loss in the republic of freedom." As gruff television police lieutenants say, police are required to "read him his rights" before questioning a suspect. Those rights say the suspect may remain silent and anything he says may be used against him; he has the right to a lawyer, and if he can't afford one, a lawyer will be provied for free. According to the 1966 supreme court Miranda decision, even a voluntary confession may not be used against the defendant if he was not told his rights. Calling the miranda rules unreasonable, unrealistic, and extremely harmful in law enforcement, judge Ralph Adam Fine of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals testified that the only factor regulating the adnmission of confessions that makes any sense is if they are voluntary. "Only a society with an incredible tolerance for the absurd would accept rules of law that help only the guilty," his prepared statement said. Harvard Law School professor Carol Steiker countered by saying that determining just how voluntary a confession is may be tricky when the suspect is being held in jail. "The miranda warnings serve the critical function of informing the individual of their rights," she said, when the government has put them in an inherently coercive situation". \\\\\\\\\\*////////////////// James Daugherty, volunteer Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273, Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales, rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\*/////////////////////////////////////// **E-Mail Update/Discussion/Archive**|*******World Wide Web/Gopher/FTP******* e-mail: majordomo@mail.msen.com | message: info prj | get prj gopher/keytogopher | ////////////////////////////////////*\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ------------------------------------------------ (This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer. All files are ZIP archives for fast download. E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)