Student Review:

     Orfield conducted a structured interview based study of Chicago narcotics officers in an attempt to gauge whether the
exclusionary rule actually deters police misconduct. He began by noting that several researchers have attempted such a project, and that thus far, none had provided persuasive evidence that the rule deters unlawful search or seizure. Orfield
claims his study does in fact document a significant deterrent effect. While the article is certainly illuminating, calling it
empirical is rather a stretch. The report is the anecdotal result of an uncontrolled and likely unrepeatable experiment. There
is nothing quantitative about it at all.
      The article is in five parts, plus a lengthy appendix. Part I reviews Supreme Court jurisprudence which has cast doubt upon the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule: Mapp, Calandra, Leon and Sheppard. This brief section is intended to point up the need for convincing information about the real world effect of the rule.
      Part II is a concise review of pre-existing studies of deterrent effect vel non. First, Orfield briefly discusses the results of three studies in the 1970's: Dallin Oaks', James Spiotto's, and Bradley Cannon's. Second, he relates the typical judicial and academic criticism of the exclusionary rule. Third, he sets out his definition of deterrence, basing it upon the courts'. Without such a definition, of course, the study could not go forward.
      Part III has two sections. The first sets out Orfield methodology and procedures, describing the sample set and what
controls there were on the experiment. The second relates the general responses to the exclusionary rule: programs and
 procedures--in both the DA's office and the various police divisions--that ensure compliance with the fourth amendment.
Orfield believes the general response is prerequisite to proper interpretation of his survey results.
      Part IV A details the results of the survey: within the sample, there were nine cases of suppression. Twenty two officer responded to the survey. Orfield tracks the causes and ramifications of those suppressions. Part IV B discusses the role of the narcotics courts in educating police on the requirements of the fourth amendment, debunking the criticisms leveled in the  second part of Part II. Similarly, Part IV C debunks criticisms aimed at the exclusionary rule's lack of punitive effect,  showing the court's ability and history of punishing the errant officers. Orfield explains that the loss of conviction is punishing, as is attendance and embarrassment in the suppression hearings themselves. Part IV D explores the incidence of police perjury.
      Part V details a representative sample of individual police officer's perceptions of the effect of the current exclusionary rule regime, and their opinions of the potential effect of an alternative tort remedy to replace the exclusionary rule.

Article Summary by: Stephen P. Gilmarten
 Emory School of Law 1996