Criminal Law, the U.S. Supreme Court, Utah v Strieff, The Exclusionary Rule, The Attenuation Doctrine and The Consent of the Governed

The "law and order" pendulum appears currently to be in a shift from its extreme left swing to a swing in the other, right-oriented, direction.

At the ABA Journal, in Chemerinsky: Has the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Fourth Amendment?, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky discusses the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Utah v. Strieff and the attenuation doctrine there -- in our opinion -- rightly applied.

In our modern systems of government, citizens surrender various rights in exchange for obtaining greater government-enforced protection and security for themselves and others. Protection of the citizens -- ALL citizens --  is the chief role of government. Not criminals, but honest law-abiding citizens are the ones who are to be protected first as a matter of priority, not vice versa.

When laws or interpretations of laws defeat that protective security promise for the bulk of citizenry, they need to be revised in order to restore the protection and security for which the citizens initially granted their "consent of the governed".

We appear to be in such an era of history where this is necessary now, and Utah v. Strieff moves in the right direction.