EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappusrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, jr.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIREGTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnChristine Haynes, E. Christian Kopff,rnj.O. Tate, Clyde WilsonrnGORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Mills,rnJacob Neusner, John Shelton Reed,rnMomcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRET’RYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnEor information on ad’Crtising in Chronicler,rnplease call Rochelle Erank at (815) 964-5811.rnLIS.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistnbutors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1996 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChromcks (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $39.00 per vear by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 80(1, Mount Morris.rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.20. No, 3 March 19%rnPrinted in tlic (Inittd States of AmcritiirnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn the FourthrnAmendmentrnIn his December essay, “The Mark of thernBeast,” Larry Pratt impHes that thosernwho oppose unconstitutional searchesrnand seizures bv the government shouldrnbe in favor of the exclusionary rule. Butrnsuch a rule, whereby probative (i.e.,rnvalid) evidence may not be introduced inrncourt if it was obtained in violation of thernFourth Amendment, is not required byrnthe Constitution, nor was it favored byrnthe Founders, as Pratt intimates. In fact,rnnot until 1914, in the Supreme Courtrncase Weeks v. United States, was an exclusionaryrnsanction applied to evidencernobtained in violation of the FourthrnAmendment, and this case involved federalrncriminal litigation. It was not untilrn1952 that the Supreme Court imposed arnfederal constitutional exclusionary requirementrnon the states. The exclusionaryrnrule is simply not required by thernConstitution, nor is it implied by rulesrnprohibiting certain types of searches andrnseizures.rnWhether the Constitution ought tornprovide for the exclusion of illegally obtainedrnevidence is another matter. In myrnview it should not, because it does not violaternthe rights of truly guilty criminalsrnto convict them with any probative evidence,rnno matter how obtained, and becausernthere are better ways to sanctionrnerrant police than to let criminals go free.rnFor example, any individual subject to anrnillegal search or seizure who is not provedrnguilty should have a cause of action forrndamages against the police and the state,rnand the policemen involved ought to bernsubject to criminal action, if warranted.rnFurther, no advocate of federalismrnshould support federal imposition of anrnexclusionary rule on states, no matterrnhow one views the merits of the exclusionaryrnrule.rn—N. Stephen KinsellarnPhiladelphia, PArnLarry Pratt Rephes:rnWhile the exclusionary rule was not articulatedrnuntil 1914, the principle datedrnfrom colonial times. It seems that thernSupreme Court established the exclusionaryrnrule as a way of correcting thernslippage of the later part of the 19th century.rnOne of the Intolerable Acts involvedrngeneral warrants, better known at therntime as Writs of Assistance. These writsrnempowered the Crown’s troops to enterrnhomes without specifying a time or arnperson. They were often used by customsrnofficers who were afraid that contrabandrnmight disappear before troopsrncould make a surprise entry. Sound similarrnto today’s War on Drugs?rnIn 1780, a Declaration of Rights wasrnattached to the Constitution of Massachusetts.rnIt reiterates the FourthrnAmendment and adds: “All warrantsrntherefore are contrary to this right, if therncause of foundation of them be not previouslyrnsupported by oath or affirmation;rnand if the order in the warrant to a civilrnofficer to make search in suspectedrnplaces, or to arrest one or more suspectedrnpersons, or to seize their property, be notrnaccompanied with a special designationrnof the persons or objects of search, arrest,rnor seizure; and no warrant ought to be issuedrnbut in cases, and with the formalities,rnprescribed by the laws.” Accordingrnto a case tried in England at the time, ifrnthe goods named in the warrant are notrnfound, then the one swearing out thernwarrant is a trespasser. As another contemporaryrnsaid: “For every man’s housernis looked upon by the law to be hisrncastle.”rnIn 1810, the Pennsylvania SupremernCourt {Conner v. Commonwealth) overturnedrna conviction because of a faultyrnwarrant. If that is not the exclusionaryrnrule, what is?rnOn the WestrnI always enjoy Chilton Williamson’srnwritings. Yet when I hear him referringrnto incoming Californians (in Polemics &rnExchanges, December 1995) as “fleeingrnthe once-lovely state they have managedrnto ruin in a couple of generations… likernlocusts, they are moving in to find someplacernelse to consume,” without notingrnthat many are internal political refugeesrn(quite a few prosperous, but no doubtrnless so in future waves), nati’e Californiansrnfleeing a state beirrg wrecked b}’ theirrnnational government’s deranged andrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn