This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The opinion nowhere uses the words idioscyncratic.
It's rationale was based not upon the exclusionary rule being uniquely American, but rather upon the inability of the Federal Court to apply it to a State Court.
“It is beyond dispute that [this Court does] not hold a super-visory power over the [state] courts.” Dickerson v. United States, 530
U. S. 428, 438. The exclusionary rule cases on which Sanchez-Llamasprincipally relies are inapplicable because they rest on the Court’s supervisory authority over federal courts.
It would be odd if the exclusionary rule were regarded as idiosyncratic to Amearican Jurisprudence - it exists in Australian statute and common law jurisprudence to avoid injustice - e.g. in South Australia: Bunning v Cross.
Suastiastu (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
