美国非法证据排除规则的当代命运

The Contemporary Development of Exclusionary Rule in America

自20世纪60年代马普案以来,非法证据排除规则开始适用于各州。然而,在美国,关于非法证据排除规则的争论一直没有停歇。而且,经过半个多世纪的判例法发展,非法证据排除规则不仅在理论基础方面发生了实质性变化,该规则的适用范围也在不断受到限缩。近年来,美国联邦最高法院关于哈德逊案、赫尔英案以及戴维斯案的判决尽管都是针对具体问题的判决,但是,这些判决不仅进一步限缩了排除规则的适用范围,而且,其论证逻辑也为非法证据排除规则的命运蒙上了一层挥之不去的阴影。

In 1961 the United States Supreme Court held in Mapp v. Ohio that the exclusionary rule extended to state criminal trials as a matter of federal constitutional law. But the argument about the justification of the exclusionary rule has never stopped in the United States. Over the past fifty years, the constitutional foundations of the exclusionary rules have shifted and their scope has been narrowed. In recent years, the Roberts Court＇ s decisions in Hudson v. Michigan （2006）, Herring v. United States （2009）, and Davis v. United States （2011） reveal a Court that is now willing to take much larger bites out of the rule, and perhaps even swallow it whole.