See Center for Media and Democracy's quick summary at bottom.

Exposed

D I D YOU KNOW? Corporations VOTED to adopt this. Through ALEC, global companies

ALEC EXPOSED
Search

ABOUT

GO

MEMBERS

LOGIN | LOGOUT | HOME | JOIN ALEC | CONTACT

work as “equals” in “unison” with politicians to write laws to govern your life. Big
MODEL LEGISLATION
ALEC INITIATIVES
PUBLICATIONS
Business
has “a VOICE TASK
and aFORCES
VOTE,” according
to newly exposed
documents. DO YOU?

EVENTS & MEETINGS

“ALEC”
NEWShas long been a
secretive collaboration
between
BigLegislation
Business and
Model
“conservative” politicians.
Civil Justice
Behind closed doors, they
ghostwrite
“model”
bills to
Commerce,
Insurance,
and Economic
be introduced
in state
Development
capitols
across the country.
This agenda--underwritten
Education
by global corporations-Energy,
includes
majorEnvironment,
tax
and Agriculture
loopholes
for big industries
and the
super rich,
Federal Relations
proposals to offshore U.S.
Health
Human
jobs and
gutand
minimum
wage,Services
and efforts to
weaken
public health,
International Relations
safety, and environmental
Public Safety
andmany
protections.
Although
Elections
of these
bills have become
law, until now, their origin
Tax and Fiscal Policy
has been largely unknown.
With ALEC
EXPOSED, the
Telecommunications
Centerand
forInformation
Media and
Technology
Democracy
hopes more
Americans will study the
Print this Page
bills to understand
the
depth andText-Only
breadth Page
of how
big corporations are
Email
this Page
changing the
legal
rules
and undermining democracy
across the nation.

ALEC’s’Corporate Board
--in recent past or present

• AT&T Services, Inc.
• centerpoint360
• UPS
• Bayer Corporation
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Energy Future Holdings
• Johnson & Johnson
• Coca-Cola Company
• PhRMA
• Kraft Foods, Inc.
• Coca-Cola Co.
• Pfizer Inc.
• Reed Elsevier, Inc.
• DIAGEO
• Peabody Energy
• Intuit, Inc.
• Koch Industries, Inc.
• ExxonMobil
• Verizon
• Reynolds American Inc.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• Salt River Project
• Altria Client Services, Inc.
• American Bail Coalition
• State Farm Insurance
For more on these corporations,
search at www.SourceWatch.org.

By the Center for
Media and Democracy
www.prwatch.org

Home

Model Legislation

Public Safety and Elections

Exclusionary Rule Act

Summary

Did you know the
NRA--the National
Rifle Association-was the corporate
co-chair in 2011?

This Act would specify the conditions which would have to be met in order to define
evidence as illegally collected and therefore suppressed from being used in a trial.
However, the Act would prohibit the suppression of evidence in both searches with a
warrant and warrantless searches if the law enforcement officer collecting the evidence
acted in good faith that he was doing so legally, even if the evidence was subsequently
ruled as being illegally collected.

Model Legislation
{Title, enacting clause, etc.}
Section 1. {Title.} This Act may be cited as the Exclusionary Rule Act.
Section 2. {Definitions.} As used in this Act:
(A) "Evidence" means contraband, instrumentations or fruits of a crime, or any other
evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue.
(B) "Good faith" means whenever a peace officer obtains evidence:
(1) pursuant to a search warrant obtained from a neutral and detached circuit court or
associate circuit court judge, which is free from obvious defects other than nondeliberate errors in preparation, and the officer reasonably believed the warrant to be
valid;
(2) pursuant to a warrantless search, when:
(a) the officer reasonably believed he possessed probable cause to make the search;
(b) the officer possessed at least a reasonable suspicion that the person or premises
searched possessed or contained items of an evidential nature; and
(c) the officer reasonably believed there were circumstances excusing the procurement
of a search warrant;
(3) pursuant to a search resulting from an arrest, when:
(a) the officer reasonably believed he possessed probable cause to make the arrest;
(b) the office reasonably believed there were circumstances excusing the procurement
of an arrest warrant; or
(c) the officer procured or executed an invalid arrest warrant he reasonably believed to
be valid;
(4) Pursuant to law, local ordinance, judicial precedent, or court rule which is later
declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalidated.

Section 3. {Suppression of evidence.}
(A) A person aggrieved by an unlawful seizure made by an officer and against whom
there is a pending criminal proceeding growing out of the subject matter of the seizure
may file a motion to suppress the use in evidence of the property or matter seized. For
the purposes of this Section, a pending criminal proceeding shall mean any criminal
investigation subject matter in seeking an indictment or information.
(B) The motion to suppress shall be in writing. It shall be filed with the court in which
there is pending against the moving party a criminal proceeding growing out of the
subject matter of the seizure.
(C) The motion shall be made before the commencement of the trial of the moving party
on the charge arising out of the seizure unless he or she was unaware of the grounds or
had no opportunity to do so before the trial. In that event, the motion may be made
during the trial. However, the trial judge may in his or her discretion entertain a motion
any time during trial. Notice shall be given to the prosecuting attorney of the date, time,
place and nature of the hearing.
(D) The motion to suppress may be based upon any one or more of the following

grounds:

Exposed

By the Center for
Media and Democracy
www.prwatch.org

(1) that the search and seizure were made without warrant and without lawful authority;
(2) that the warrant was improper upon its face or was illegally issued, including the
issuance of a warrant without proper showing of probable cause;
(3) that the property seized was not that described in the warrant and that the officer
was not otherwise lawfully privileged to seize the same;
(4) that the warrant was illegally executed by the officer; or
(5) that in any other manner the search and seizure violated the rights of the moving
party under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States.
(E) The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the
motion. The burden of proof shall be upon the state to show a preponderance of the
evidence that the motion to suppress should be overruled.
(F) If the motion is sustained, the judge shall order the property or matter delivered to
the moving party, unless its retention is authorized or required by any other law of this
state.
(G) If a party in a proceeding, whether civil or criminal, seeks to exclude evidence from
the trier of fact because of the conduct of a peace officer in obtaining the evidence, the
proponent of the evidence may urge that the peace officer's conduct was taken in
reasonable, good faith belief that the conduct was proper and that the evidence
discovered should not be kept from the trier of fact if otherwise admissible.
(H) No court shall suppress evidence that is otherwise admissible in a civil or criminal
proceeding if the evidence was seized in good faith or as a result of a technical violation.

Section 4. This Act shall not adversely affect the rights of any plaintiff to seek special

damages against a peace officer or a governmental entity, provided that the trier of fact
in such civil action determines that the officer or entity conducted an unlawful search or
seizure.

Section 5. {Severability clause.}
Section 6. {Repealer clause.}
Section 7. {Effective date.}
ALEC's Sourcebook of American State Legislation 1995

About Us and ALEC EXPOSED. TheAbout
Center Members
for Media and
Democracy
reports
on corporate spin and government
Login
Logout
Events & Meetings
propaganda.! We are located
in Madison, Task
Wisconsin,
publish
www.PRWatch.org,
Model Legislation
Forces and
ALEC
Initiatives
Publications www.SourceWatch.org,
Home
and now www.ALECexposed.org. For more information
contact:
or 608-260-9713.
Join ALEC
Contact editor@prwatch.org
News

Center for Media and Democracy's quick summary:
This bill would significantly change the "exclusionary rule," a rule of evidence that allows the exclusion of evidence from trial if it was obtained in a
manner inconsistent with the 4th Amendment or other law (namely, collected without a warrant and not based on one of the warrant exceptions). The
exclusionary rule is tied to enforcement of the 4th Amendment's guarantees. This bill would eliminate that rule, allowing admission of evidence if an
officer "reasonably believed" that an unlawful search was justified.
A similar bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995 (introduced by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL)) but did not pass the Senate. Similar bills
were also introduced in many states, including Texas.