The case was decided six to three. Justice Black delivered a concurring opinion.
I am still not persuaded that the Fourth Amendment, standing alone,
would be enough to bar the introduction into evidence against an accused
of papers and effects seized from him in violation of its commands. For
the Fourth Amendment does not itself contain any provision expressly
precluding the use of such evidence, and I am extremely doubtful that
such a provision could properly be inferred from nothing more than the
basic command against unreasonable searches and seizures. Reflection on
the problem, however, in the light of cases coming before the Court
since Wolf, has led me to conclude that when the Fourth
Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered
together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled
self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only
justifies but actually requires the exclusionary rule.
Questions to Consider
- Does Justice Black agree or disagree with the exclusionary rule?
- How does his reasoning differ from that in the majority opinion?