An Account of Mapp v. Ohio That Misses the Larger Exclusionary Rule Story

∗ E.E. Overton Distinguished Professor of Law and Alumni Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law. My thanks to Joshua Dressler for inviting me to review this book. 1 Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (2006). In Hudson, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court opined that one should not assume that there is a need to deter police misconduct by excluding unconstitutionally seized evidence today just because of “the sins and inadequacies of a legal regime that existed almost half a century ago,” and suggested that civil lawsuits for damages now provide a remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. Id. at 2167. Significantly, in addition to the predictable vote of Justice Thomas, both of the recent appointees, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, joined Scalia’s opinion and thus indicated their readiness to abolish the exclusionary rule.