Bunuel wrote:
Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.
It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?
(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
Imo-
(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
---will keep this one for now !!
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
---This is out of scope , we are more concerned with
the exclusionary rule than with protection.
--Out
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
---Although the author mentions the minor criminal offence , but this is only a subset of the larger cause at hand
---Out
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
---This one is
pretty extreme , if we look at the first statement of the argument , the author says
Although its purpose is laudable---Out
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal
---This is pretty close , but again
any means necessary seems a bit extreme ---Out
I will go with A !!