Works matching Exclusionary rule and the Supreme Court
1
- Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 2018, v. 18, n. 4, p. 14, doi. 10.19151/leef.2018.1804.b
- Article
2
- Faulkner Law Review, 2011, v. 2, n. 2, p. 361
- Article
3
- New England Law Review, 2017, v. 51, n. 2, p. 323
- Article
4
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2010, v. 2010, n. 1, p. 51
- Article
5
- George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 2012, v. 23, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
6
- Derecho Penal y Criminologia, 2012, v. 33, n. 94, p. 37
- Article
7
- Journal of Criminal Law, 2015, v. 79, n. 4, p. 238, doi. 10.1177/0022018315597851a
- Article
8
- Vanderbilt Law Review, 2019, v. 72, n. 2, p. 561
- Article
9
- Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2012, v. 102, n. 1, p. 1
- Article
10
- BYU Journal of Public Law, 2012, v. 27, n. 1, p. 97
- Benner, Laurence A.;
- Bird, Robert;
- Smythe, Donald J.
- Article
11
- Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1992, v. 43, n. 1, p. 253
- Article
12
- Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007, v. 2007, n. 2, p. 451
- Article
13
- St. Thomas Law Review, 2017, v. 30, n. 1, p. 68
- Article
14
- SMU Law Review, 2017, v. 70, n. 2, p. 293
- Article
15
- SMU Law Review, 2014, v. 67, n. 4, p. 821
- Article
16
- International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2015, v. 19, n. 4, p. 270, doi. 10.1177/1365712715601764
- Article
17
- International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2011, v. 15, n. 1, p. 62, doi. 10.1350/ijep.2011.15.1.368
- Article
18
- Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 2011, v. 24, n. 2, p. 229
- Article
19
- UMKC Law Review, 2011, v. 80, n. 2, p. 485
- Article
20
- U.C. Davis Law Review, 2014, v. 47, n. 5, p. 1591
- Article
21
- Missouri Law Review, 2022, v. 87, n. 4, p. 1
- Article
22
- Business Lawyer, 2007, v. 62, n. 3, p. 1059
- Article
23
- Northwestern University Law Review, 2025, v. 119, n. 4, p. 1103
- Article
24
- Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2018, v. 45, n. 3, p. 799
- Article
25
- St. Louis University Public Law Review, 2012, v. 32, n. 1, p. 123
- Article
26
- St. Louis University Law Journal, 2016, v. 60, n. 3, p. 497
- Article
27
- St. Louis University Law Journal, 2016, v. 60, n. 3, p. 481
- Article
28
- Iowa Law Review, 2008, v. 93, n. 5, p. 1819
- Article
29
- Iowa Law Review, 2008, v. 93, n. 5, p. 1741
- Article
30
- Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2012, v. 9, n. 1, p. 149, doi. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01250.x
- Article
31
- Criminal Justice Studies, 2012, v. 25, n. 2, p. 205, doi. 10.1080/1478601X.2012.699737
- Bolen, Jonathan;
- Hemmens, Craig
- Article
32
- Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 2013, v. 44, n. 2, p. 477
- Article
33
- Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 2012, v. 15, n. 5, p. 476, doi. 10.4314/pelj.v15i5.13
- Article
34
- Utah Law Review, 2008, v. 2008, n. 2, p. 519
- Article
35
- Tennessee Bar Journal, 2016, v. 52, n. 12, p. 5
- Article
36
- Tennessee Bar Journal, 2016, v. 52, n. 12, p. 5
- Article
37
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2003, v. 26, n. 1, p. 119
- Article
38
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1997, v. 20, n. 2, p. 425
- Article
39
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1991, v. 14, n. 1, p. 173
- Article
40
- Wisconsin International Law Journal, 2013, v. 31, n. 2, p. 296
- Article
41
- William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2013, v. 21, n. 3, p. 821
- Article
42
- Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 2017, v. 27, n. 2, p. 147, doi. 10.18060/7909.0049
- Article
44
- Harvard Journal on Legislation, 2012, v. 49, n. 2, p. 373
- Article
45
- Deakin Law Review, 2005, v. 10, n. 2, p. 772, doi. 10.21153/dlr2005vol10no2art304
- Article
46
- University of Chicago Law Review, 2014, v. 81, n. 4, p. 1883
- Article
47
- New York University Law Review, 2021, v. 96, n. 6, p. 2048
- Article
48
- Journal of Soochow University Law Edition, 2025, v. 12, n. 1, p. 1, doi. 10.19563/j.cnki.sdfx.2025.01.001
- Article
49
- Golden Gate University Law Review, 2018, v. 48, n. 2, p. 133
- Article
50
- Brooklyn Law Review, 2016, v. 81, n. 3, p. 1121
- Article