Talk:Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon

Opinion of the Court
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)