Police 'Testilying' Controversy Heats Up After Exclusionary Rule is Relaxed
After repeated instances of police allegedly lying in court to obtain convictions, some observers would like to see stricter preventative measures. In addition to videotaping searches, some have even suggested polygraphing officers before they take the witness stand to prevent such “testilying.”
The nation’s highest court, however, has heated up the debate by suggesting “that a simpler, though controversial, solution may be to weaken a long-standing part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it. “The 5-4 ruling in Herring v. U.S. that evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant could indicate the U.S. is inching closer to a system in which officers might not be tempted to lie to prevent evidence from being thrown out.”
Authored by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the Herring decision says improperly obtained evidence may be admitted “when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements,” as discussed in an earlier ABAJournal.com post.
Thus, if police, after Herring, think it’s less likely that evidence found in flawed search will be thrown out, they will have less incentive to lie in court, the Wall Street Journal says.
A number of recent court cases have involved allegations that police may have lied, as discussed in earlier ABAJournal.com posts. Among them:
Chief Judge Blasts US Attorney Over ‘Egregious Failure’ to Disclose
Another Perry Mason Moment in LA, as Police Testimony is Contradicted
