Show simple item record

dc.creatorLoewy, Arnold H.
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-13T18:56:25Z
dc.date.available2021-09-13T18:56:25Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationArnold H. Loewy, The Exclusionary Rule as a Remedy, 46 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 369 (2013-2014)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/87830
dc.description.abstractArgues that the Court was correct in concluding that the exclusionary rule is a remedy, rather than a right. The advocates that the Court has been incorrect in its parsimonious use of the exclusionary rule as a remedy in that the Court consistently undervalues the importance of the exclusionary rule and, at the same time, overrates the harm that the rule can do.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectFourth Amendments violationsen_US
dc.subjectExclusionary ruleen_US
dc.subjectMapp v. Ohioen_US
dc.subjectFourth Amendment as a device for protecting the innocenten_US
dc.subjectHudson v. Michiganen_US
dc.subjectWilson v. Arkansasen_US
dc.subjectRichards v. Wisconsinen_US
dc.subjectExclusionary rule as a remedyen_US
dc.titleThe Exclusionary Rule as a Remedyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record