J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which provides that a justice or judge convicted of a felony shall be suspended from office without pay pending the disposition of impeachment proceedings. I believe that the citizens of the United States will agree that those who have been convicted of felonies should not be allowed to continue to occupy positions of trust and responsibility in our Government. Nevertheless, under current constitutional law it is possible for judges to continue to receive a salary and to still sit on the bench and hear cases even after being convicted of a felony. If they are unwilling to resign, the only method which may be used to remove them from the Federal payroll is impeachment. Currently, the Congress has the power to impeach officers of the Government who have committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Even when a court has already found an official guilty of a serious crime, Congress must then essentially retry the official before he or she can be removed from the Federal payroll. The impeachment process is typically very time consuming and can occupy a great deal of the resources of Congress. Mr. President, one way to solve this problem would be to amend the Constitution. Today, I am also introducing a Senate resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing for forfeiture of office by Government officials and judges convicted of felonies. While I believe that a constitutional amendment may be the best solution to the problem, I am also introducing this statutory remedy to address the current situation. This legislation will provide that a judge convicted of a felony shall be suspended from office without pay pending the disposition of impeachment proceedings. The Framers of the Constitution could not have intended convicted felons to continue to serve on the bench and to receive compensation once they have violated the law and the trust of the people. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this legislation and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill which would codify the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule that has been recognized by the Supreme Court. The legislation that I am offering today is similar to measures I have introduced in the last five Congresses and to a proposal which passed the Senate by the vote of 63-24 in 1984. Although the House of Representatives passed similar legislation during the pass this proposal. The exclusionary rule is a judicially creased remedy for violations by law enforcement officers of the fourth amendment prohibition against illegal searches and seizures. More simply, if evidence is obtained by a law enforcement officer in violation of the fourth amendment then that evidence will be excluded in a criminal trail. The exclusionary rule is an important principle since it helps to ensure that law enforcement officers not be allowed to randomly enter our homes or private places and search without just cause. However, since the creation of the exclusionary rule remedy in 1914, in Weeks versus California, the Supreme Court has recognized exceptions when the exclusionary rule should not apply. This measure addresses one of those exceptions. This legislation codifies the Court's holding in United States versus Leon to provide that evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant which is later found to be defective will not be excluded it the law enforcement officer acted in objective good faith. Objective good faith would be established if the circumstances surrounding the search justify an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. This bill also extends this exception to warrantless searches which has been recognized in two Federal circuits. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today neither authorizes nor encourages law enforcement officers to disregard the fourth amendment and randomly search a person's home. What it does is address the legal loophole that often allows a criminal to go free, irrespective of guilt or innocence, when evidence crucial to a criminal proceeding is suppressed. The goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement conduct that violates the fourth amendment. Therefore, if a law enforcement officer's conduct in executing a search is in conformity with the fourth amendment, applying the exclusionary rule does not serve as a deterrent. It should be noted that the determination as to whether the officer conducted the search in objective good faith would be made by a court based on the circumstances surrounding the search. Of course, if the officer's conduct did not exhibit objective good faith, the evidence would not be allowed. This amendment is a reasonable extension of the exception currently recognized by the Supreme Court. We are well aware of the fact that the exclusion of evidence most often resulted in the release of the accused. This is a high price to pay for acts which do not violate the Constitution. Therefore, I think it wise to preclude the use of the exclusionary rule in these situations unless Congress so provides. This legislation will aid in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals without sacrificing the principles of the fourth amendment. In an effort to work towards a bi-partisan comprehensive crime bill last Congress, I agreed to not pursue passage of this measure. However, it is my belief that the Congress failed to produce a true, tough crime bill worthy of the American people. This Congress, I plan to strongly pursue this, and other, vital criminal law reform measures which will ensure that criminals are appropriately punished. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this vital measure and hope that we will act without delay. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.