This article is an introduction the symposium, "The Future of the Exclusionary Rule and the Aftereffects of the Herring and Hudson Decisions," hosted by the Fordham Urban Law Journal. The symposium explored the effects of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Herring v. United States and Hudson v. Michigan—what the Supreme Court will do with the Rule in the future, as well as varying interpretations of what the Supreme Court should do. The federal exclusionary rule, which is approaching its 100th anniversary, was extended to the states almost fifty years ago by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision of Mapp v. Ohio. It has thus defined the legal landscape for the entire career of virtually everyone who practices in a criminal courtroom today. Numerous decisions have refined the scope of the exclusionary rule and recently the Supreme Court, in Hudson v. Michigan and Herring v. United States, limited its application in ways that have led some commentators to predict its demise. Whether or not that prediction is warranted, these decisions nevertheless provide an opportunity to reflect on the future of the exclusionary rule and to envision a world without it, even if that is a world many of us would regret.
Introduction to Symposium: The Future of the Exclusionary Rule and the Aftereffects of the Herring and Hudson Decisions,
37 Fordham Urb. L.J. 699
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol37/iss3/1