Meese’s Challenges of Supreme Court Rulings

While ideologically I disagree with the vast majority of Times editorials, I have seldom seen such an ill-conceived, arbitrary editorial (Aug. 28) as your “Infamous Attack” on Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III.

If the attorney general of the United States cannot challenge court-mandated “rules of law” that seriously impact the administration of justice, then who should?

Opposition to the exclusionary rule and other court-imposed rules is not new (Mapp vs. Ohio was a 6-3 decision; and Miranda vs. Arizona a 5-4 decision, hardly as conclusive as The Times editorial staff would have the public believe).

The exclusionary rules provides a “remedy” only to those charged with a crime. A rule of law that precludes matters of fact from being introduced as evidence in a trial (presumptively designed to elicit the whole truth) by virtue of ineptitude or misconduct on the part of a governmental agent, is indefensible. The “remedy” sought in your editorial is and should be appropriate sanctions and monetary awards attained through civil courts or a myriad of other avenues.

STUART HANSELL

La Palma