SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Walden (4 th Cir. 1974) 490
F.2 nd 372, 376-377, found no indication of widespread violation of
the Act or its policy and declined to adopt an exclusionary rule.
The court stated that the statute was previously little known, that
there was no evidence that the violation in this case was deliberate
or intentional, that the policy expressed in the Posse Comitatus Act
is for the benefit of the nation as a whole, and not designed to
protect the personal rights of defendants. Noting that a rationale for
adopting an exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations
is that available alternative remedies have proved ineffectual, the
court expressed confidence that the military would take steps to
ensure enforcement of the act.
However, the Court noted at page 377; “Should there be
evidence of widespread or repeated violations in any future
case, or ineffectiveness of enforcement by the military, we
will consider ourselves free to consider whether adoption of
an exclusionary rule is required as a future deterrent.” (See
also United States v. Wolffs (5 th Cir. 1979) 594 F.2 nd 77,
84-85.)
© 2011 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
235