Paul H. Rubin complains that the exclusionary rule "hinders" law enforcement in detecting and prosecuting suspected crimes ("The Exclusionary Rule's Hidden Costs," op-ed, Feb. 28). He is probably right. The Bill of Rights contains many such provisions that restrict government's ability to detect and punish crime, including the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be arrested only upon probable cause, the bar against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to due process of law. Evidently, the Founding Fathers believed that there is a higher value than efficient law enforcement.
As for Prof. Rubin's claim that the exclusionary rule "encourages criminals to increase their illegal activity," that is far-fetched. Exclusion of evidence is extremely rare; exclusion of evidence that prevents prosecution and conviction is even rarer. Who engages in criminal conduct based on the assumption that the exclusionary rule will prevent their prosecution? Few citizens, including criminals, can predict when evidence will be suppressed. After the Supreme Court's recent decision in Herring v. U.S., which instructs lower court judges to engage in a kind of cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to exclude evidence, no judge can say with confidence when evidence will be excluded either.
We have constitutional rights, many of which protect us from the government, also called law enforcement. Either we have remedies for violations of these rights or we do not. A right without a remedy is worthless.
Philip S. Kushner
Mr. Kushner, I have just one question: when is President Obama going to appoint you as a federal judge?