☰ In this section

The Champion

November/December 2008 , Page 5 

Search the Champion Looking for something specific?

Preview of Member Only Content

For full access: login or Become a Member Join Now

From the President

By John Wesley Hall

Read more From the President columns.

The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. 

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948).

Chief Justice Roberts: I don’t know what the situation is like in Dale County. They probably don’t have the latest version of WordPerfect, or whatever it is. They are probably making do with whatever they can under their budget and doing the best they can.

Ms. Karlan: But there’s not a Barney Fife1 defense to the violation of the Fourth Amendment either.

Herring v. United States, No. 07-513, oral argument transcript at 20 (Oct. 7, 2008).

Yes, Virginia, there is a Barney Fife exception to the exclusionary rule.

Want to read more?

The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.

NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.

Not a member? Join now.
Join Now
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.

See what NACDL members say about us.

To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.

  • Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
  • Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.
Advertisement Advertise with Us

In This Section

Advertisement Advertise with Us