‘It’s a Monster’: Federal Drug Bill

The assault by The Times on the drug bill was disappointing (“It’s a Monster,” editorial, Sept. 14). This legislation represents a comprehensive approach to drug policy by attempting to address both the supply and the demand side of the problem.

Your argument that my amendment to reform the exclusionary rule is “an invitation to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment” is most puzzling.

First of all, my amendment would in no way affect the scope or substantive law of search and seizure. Contrary to your comments, the exclusionary rule is not part and parcel of the Constitution. Rather, it is a judicially created remedy. It in fact was not adopted until 1914, 123 years after the Fourth Amendment was adopted. It has only been applicable to state criminal proceedings for the past 27 years.

Secondly, my amendment would not eliminate the exclusionary rule. Rather, it would return it to its original purpose of deterring unlawful police conduct. If a police officer acts with a good faith belief that he or she is in conformity with the law, the egregious type of conduct that the rule was designed to preclude is not an issue. The application of the rule in a blanket fashion where evidence is excluded on the basis of technicalities only punishes society and crime victims.

Finally, my amendment is quite relevant to the drug problem. A study in California by the National Institute of Justice shows that over 70% of all felony cases rejected for prosecution in California because of potential exclusionary rule problems were drug cases. Approximately 30% of felony drug arrests were rejected by prosecutors because of search and seizure problems.

While reasonable people can disagree on important public policy questions, The Times does a disservice to its readers to viscerally attack any effort to “fine tune” the judicially established exclusionary rule.

REP. DANIEL E. LUNGREN

R-Long Beach