IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Criminal Procedure on Crime Rates: Mapping Out the Consequences of the Exclusionary Rule


  • Atkins, Raymond A
  • Rubin, Paul H


In 1961, in its Mapp v. Ohio to ruling, the Supreme Court required every state to exclude from criminal trials evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is the "exclusionary rule." At the time the Supreme Court issued its ruling, 24 states allowed ill-gotten evidence in their criminal trials, and 24 excluded it. An economic analysis of the search warrant process predicts an increase in crime rates after the Supreme Court forced states to adopt the exclusionary rule as police officers substitute away from searches toward alternatives they consider less effective. Our empirical analysis supports this theoretical prediction. We find a statistically and economically significant increase in crimes followed the Supreme Court's imposition of the exclusionary rule, with suburban cities bearing the brunt of the Supreme Court's decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Atkins, Raymond A & Rubin, Paul H, 2003. "Effects of Criminal Procedure on Crime Rates: Mapping Out the Consequences of the Exclusionary Rule," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(1), pages 157-179, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:y:2003:v:46:i:1:p:157-79

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Dhammika Dharmapala & Thomas J. Miceli, 2013. "Search, seizure and false (?) arrest: an analysis of fourth amendment remedies when police can plant evidence," Chapters,in: Research Handbook on Economic Models of Law, chapter 11, pages 208-234 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. repec:aea:aejpol:v:9:y:2017:i:2:p:1-27 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:y:2003:v:46:i:1:p:157-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.