In response to a few correspondents, let me try to be more clear. I’m not questioning all exclusionary rules. A truly coerced statement (i.e., one where the declarant’s will was overborne during interrogation) is properly suppressed by the judiciary as a Fifth Amendment violation. I also think it’s valid to suppress seized evidence where the police behave so egregiously in obtaining a warrant or executing a search as to render the search unreasonable (reasonableness being the core of the Fourth Amendment guarantee). On the latter, I would personally prefer to see a different, effective way of disciplining the police — one that didn’t involve penalizing the public by suppressing evidence. But I concede it’s reasonable to conclude that the failure to suppress in the face of truly egregious misconduct could result in an overall amount of police lawlessness that would be intolerable. Even though I am personally dubious, I do not quarrel with the conclusion that such lawlessness could not adequately be addressed by other methods of disciplining the police, and thus that suppression is the appropriate remedy. The exclusionary rule is too well-established to make such a quarrel worthwhile — the rule is here to stay.But short of such egregious constitutional violations, I don’t think it’s the Court’s place to craft the remedy.