Criminologist Samuel Walker of the University of Nebraska at Omaha is accusing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia of wrongly citing his work “to support a terrible decision, holding that the exclusionary rule – which for decades prevented evidence obtained illegally by police from being used at trial – no longer applies when cops enter your home without knocking,” Walker writes in the Los Angelest Times.
Scalia quotes Walker’s oook, “Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in American Criminal Justice,” to say there has been tremendous progress “in the education, training and supervision of police officers” since the 1961 Mapp decision, which imposed the exclusionary rule on local law enforcement. Walker says Scalia suggests that the results he highlighted have sufficiently removed the need for an exclusionary rule to act as a judicial-branch watchdog over the police. “I have never said or even suggested such a thing,” Walker says. “To the contrary, I have argued that the results reinforce the Supreme Court’s continuing importance in defining constitutional protections for individual rights and requiring the appropriate remedies for violations, including the exclusion of evidence.” Walker calls the recent Supreme Court ruling “a dangerous step backward.”