As Donald Dripps has observed, "[i]f effective civil remedies carried the political appeal that would commend them to legislators, those remedies would have forced the police to comply with the Amendment in the [years before] Mapp [and] Mapp would have discomfited the police but little." (44)
Dripps, At the Borders of the Fourth Amendment: Why a Real Due Process Test Should Replace the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense, 1993 U.
(44) Donald Dripps, Akhil Amar on Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law: "Here I Go Down that Wrong Road Again," 74 N.C.L.
Perhaps the most interesting proposal in recent years is one by Donald Dripps, "that courts should begin to experiment with suppression orders that are contingent on the failure of the police department to pay damages set by the court." Donald Dripps, The Case for the Contingent Exclusionary Rule, 38 AM.
Professor Dripps may not be willing to call a tort remedy against the police a perfect one unless it includes a provision that "either party may introduce polygraph evidence and the failure of the opposing party to introduce such evidence." Id.
Professor Dripps may have overstated the point somewhat, but not, I think, by very much when he observed: "For every prosecution aborted by the constitutional exclusionary rules, roughly a hundred founder because of numbingly prosaic procedural problems.