[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: HR 666: A Bill To Control Crime By Exclusionary Rule Reform HR 666: A Bill To Control Crime By Exclusionary Rule Reform [I-L Note: This bill's number was obviously assigned by an undercover civil libertarian on the House staff. A consistently unreliable source has informed lectlaw that by coincidence this person's body was found the next day in a suburban Virginia park surrounded by various obscure symbols scratched in the dirt. It had been sodomized and burned, the numbers 666 carved in it's forehead, and appearently partially eaten. In it's clenched fist was a ripped piece of cloth with a House Leadership Conference pin attached. After an exhaustive investigation the death was ruled a suicide.] 104th CONGRESS 1st Session IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 25, 1995 Mr. McCollum introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995`. SEC. 2. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE. (a) In General. - Chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `Sec. 3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure `(a) Evidence Obtained by Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure. - Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if the search or seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances. `(b) Evidence Not Excludable by Statute or Rule. - `(1) Generally. - Evidence shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that it was obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule or regulation, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is expressly authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. `(2) Special rule relating to objectively reasonable searches and seizures. - Evidence which is otherwise excludable under paragraph (1) shall not be excluded if the search or seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that the search or seizure was in conformity with the statute, administrative rule or regulation, or rule of procedure, the violation of which occasioned its being excludable. `(c) Rule of Construction. - This section shall not be construed to require or authorize the exclusion of evidence in any proceeding.`. (b) Clerical Amendment. - The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `3510. Admissibility of evidence obtained by search or seizure.`. ----- Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike. http://www.lectlaw.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
I am reasonably sure that this bill, introduced by Rep. Bill McCollum in 1995 to gut the exclusionary rule, was not passed by Congress (although it was passed by the House.) However, I thought it was worth posting just because of the amusing number it was assigned by the congressional clerks: H. R. 666.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
That bill would pass today, almost unanimously, no sweat. It was introduced 6 years too early. Bad timing on their part
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||