...their phrasing, these objections hardly answer the basic postulate of the exclusionary rule itself. The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair....way — by removing the incentive to disregard it. See Eleuteri v. Richman, 26 NJ 506, 513, 141 A. 2d 46, 50. Mr. Justice Jackson summed it up well: 'Only...

...their phrasing, these objections hardly answer the basic postulate of the exclusionary rule itself. The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair....way — by removing the incentive to disregard it. See Eleuteri v. Richman, 26 NJ 506, 513, 141 A. 2d 46, 50. Mr. Justice Jackson summed it up well :...

...and enjoyment. Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter — to compel respect for the constitutional...way — by removing the incentive to disregard it." Elhins v. United States, supra, at 217. Indeed, we are aware of no restraint, similar to that rejected...

...illegally seized by state agents. It was in Elkins that the Court emphasized that the exclusionary rule was "calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose...way— by removing the incentive to disregard it." 17 At 217. Mapp was announced in 1961. The Court in considering "the current validity of the factual...

...illegally seized by state agents. It was in Elkins that the Court emphasized that the exclusionary rule was "calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose...way — by removing the incentive to disregard it." " At 217. Mapp was announced in 1961. The Court in considering "the current validity of the factual...

...nothing short of mandatory exclusion of the illegal evidence will compel respect for the federal law "in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it." Elkins v. United States, 364 US, at 217. Reversed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting. In 1937, Nardone...

...for example in Elkins v. United States, 364 US 206, 217 (1960), where we said: "The [exclusionary] rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair. Its purpose is to deter — 7 Only one of these decisions, Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 US 364 (1968), actually ordered the granting...

...Powell, 428 US 465, 486 (1976); United States v. Calandra, 414 US 338, 347^48 (1974). The exclusionary rule is "calculated to prevent, not to repair"; its purpose is "to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing...

...[Emphasis added.] Subsequently, the Court, in Elkins v. United States, supra, noted (364 US at 217): The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair....way — by removing the incentive to disregard It. And in Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, which involved a warrantless search pursuant to the San Francisco...

...Powell, 428 US 465, 486 (1976); United States v. Calandra, 414 US 338, 347^*8 (1974). The exclusionary rule is "calculated to prevent, not to repair"; its purpose is "to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing...