[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 26 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E310-E311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  EXCLUSIONARY RULE REFORM ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 7, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 666) to 
     control crime by exclusionary rule reform.

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the fourth amendment to our Constitution 
prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the government. It 
protects all Americans from arbitrary and unfounded government 
invasions into their homes.
  The Supreme Court has held--in its ruling establishing what is known 
as the exclusionary rule--that any evidence seized in violation of the 
fourth amendment cannot be used as evidence at trial. In 1984, however, 
the Court created the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, 
specifying that, if law enforcement officers in ``objective good 
faith'' believe they are conducting a constitutional search or seizure, 
then the evidence can be used at trial. The Court limited this 
exception to apply only to searches with warrants.
  If H.R. 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, is enacted, the good 
faith exception to the exclusionary rule would be broadened to apply to 
searches both with and without warrants. As a result, evidence obtained 
in a search or seizure that violated constitutional protections 
[[Page E311]] would not be excluded if the search or seizure were 
carried under an objectively reasonable belief that it was in 
conformity with the fourth amendment. In other words, the bill permits 
the use of evidence obtained without a search warrant in Federal 
proceedings, if law enforcement officers believe they were acting in 
good faith compliance with the fourth amendment.
  The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule has been in effect 
since 1984. At that time, the Supreme Court ruled that, so long as 
evidence is seized in reasonable good faith reliance on a search 
warrant, that evidence is admissible, even if the warrant is 
subsequently found to be defective, so long as the officer's reliance 
is objectively reasonable. As a result, officers were given the leeway 
to discharge their duties in good faith, without having to check with a 
judge or magistrate. This good faith exception perseveres today.
  I supported the amendment offered by my colleague from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers, which would enact into law the Court's ruling regarding the 
good faith exception for searches with warrants. It would also enact 
into law the Court's later ruling that extends the exception to 
evidence that is obtained in an officer's good faith reliance on a 
statute, even if that statute is later held to be unconstitutional.
  Because the exclusionary rule protects all of our citizens against 
unreasonable searches and seizures and the invasion of privacy by law 
enforcement officers, I am concerned with attempts to erode its 
protections. Broadening the limited good faith by exception to include 
searches without warrants, as H.R. 666 does, would eviscerate the rule 
itself and leave Americans open to the very violations of our 
constitutional rights that the rule is designed to prevent. For this 
reason, I cannot support H.R. 666, as written.
  The roots of the exclusionary rule were planted during the British 
occupation of the American colonies--when illegal search and seizure 
were commonplace. Our Founding Fathers enacted the fourth amendment to 
protect us from arbitrary and unjust searches of our homes and private 
property. Tampering with this fundamental American right is dangerous. 
Without the perfecting amendment which I support, H.R. 666 leaves 
average American citizens wide open to abuses of authority by overly 
zealous law enforcement officers who, in their eagerness to uphold the 
law, may find themselves violating the most basic rights of American 
citizens. I hope my colleagues will carefully weigh the far-reaching 
effects of creating such a broad loophole in the fourth amendment. If 
we seriously consider the intent of the Framers of our Constitution, we 
must ultimately decide to leave this basic, constitutional protection 
intact.


                          ____________________