A Hard Look at What We Know (and Still Need to Learn) About the "Costs" of the Exclusionary Rule: The NIJ Study and Other Studies of "Lost" Arrests

The controversy over a "good faith mistake" exception to the exclusionary rule and the 1982 National Institute of Justice study of the effects of the rule in California have focused attention on the "costs" of the rule. This article reviews the NIJ study and seven other relevant studies and concludes that the NIJ study's claim that the rule has a "major impact" on the disposition of felony arrests is misleading and exaggerated. California data show that prosecutors reject only 0.8% (8 in 1,000) of felony arrests because of illegal searches. The effect of the rule is concentrated in drug cases in which the rejection rate by prosecutors is 2.4% (not 30%, as suggested by the NIJ study), but the rejection rate for non-drug arrests is less than 0.3%, and the rate is even lower for violent crimes. Even if one looks at the cumulative effect of the rule through all stages of the felony process in California, only about 2.35% of felony arrests are lost because of illegal searches, and this is a high-side estimate based on potentially atypical samples. Moreover, studies of "lost arrests" have not differentiated between arrests resulting from bona fide crime investigations and arrests that resulted from arbitrary searches or arrests that were made to seize contraband, for harassment, or for purposes other than obtaining a conviction. The author concludes that available data show the cost of the rule is marginal, especially in view of the ambiguous nature of the lost arrests. Moreover, it is doubtful that a good faith mistake exception would save any substantial proportion of the arrests lost following illegal searches. In particular, an exception for searches conducted under an improper warrant would save only a negligible proportion of lost arrests.     

As-Salamu Alaykum From Beijing!

It's December—that time of year again. No, not Christmas; I'm talking about the UN Arabic Language Day which falls on December 18.UNESCO initially started to observe this day in 2012 to "celebrate multilingualism and cultural diversity." The selfproclaimed linguist I am, I couldn't think of a better way to celebrate this day while in Beijing than by exploring Arabic through the eyes of its Chinese apprentices.     

An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights – Artificial intelligence and intellectual property

This article addresses and analyses the issues concerning the ownership of computer generated works within patents and copyright, and concludes that the current regime is woefully inadequate to deal with the growing use of more and more intuitive artificial intelligence systems in the production of such works. It considers the respective claims of interested parties to such rights before moving on to a consideration of the creation of a new legal personality to which such rights could be granted to resolve the difficulties inherent in the current system.     

Analysis of the First- and Second-Generation Raving Dragon Novelty Bath Salts Containing Methylone and Pentedrone

In recent years, a large number of designer drugs sold as “Bath Salts” have appeared on the market. In July of 2011, Raving Dragon Novelty Bath Salts was obtained over the Internet. This product became unavailable in October of that year coinciding with the DEA issuing a temporarily schedule of mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV. Four months later in February of 2012, a new product was released from the same company under the new name Raving Dragon Voodoo Dust. The contents of both products were identified using spectroscopy methods: nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared, UV–visible, tandem mass spectrometry, and high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. It was determined that Raving Dragon Novelty Bath Salts contained methylone. The replacement product Raving Dragon Voodoo Dust contained the unscheduled drug pentedrone. The Raving Dragon brand of products illustrates the rapid change of ingredients in these products to circumvent laws restricting availability, distribution, and use.