In his recent U.C. Davis article, which has won the Fred Zacharias prize and is cited below, Russell Gold contends that although the Supreme Court has cut back on the exclusionary remedy for 4th amendment violations, that doesn't mean there was not a 4th amendment violation. It only means there is no remedy in court. Prosecutors, he argues, have a duty not to offer illegaly seized evidence even if, because of the Court's decisions, the evidence won't be suppressed. He calls this "administrative" -- as opposed to judicial -- suppression. Among other arguments, he writes:
"[P]rosecutors’ existing ethical responsibilities provide good reason to administratively suppress evidence. Unlike with ordinary rules of evidence, introducing search and seizure evidence generates blowback from prosecutors’ actions in the courtroom to police actions on the street. Because much of the evidence that police obtain in violation of the Fourth Amendment is admissible due to exceptions to the exclusionary rule, prosecutors who use admissibility as their benchmark signal to police that constitutional violations are typically costless. That signal contravenes prosecutors’ responsibility to encourage police to comply with the law and undermines the constitutional rights of prosecutors’ constituents. Administrative suppression, in contrast, would send the opposite signal: Fourth Amendment violations have consequences."
The article is Russell Gold, Beyond the Judicial Fourth Amendment: The Prosecutor’s Role, 47 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1591 (2014)