EXCLUSIONARY RULE CHALLENGE FAILS

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court today rejected a Florida woman's
appeal to decide whether a judge-made rule that keeps illegally seized
evidence out of criminal trials applies when a convicted criminal is
sentenced.

The justices, without comment, turned away an opportunity to clarify
the reach of the so-called exclusionary rule, which the Supreme Court
created in 1914 to deter misconduct by law enforcement officers.

The rule bars evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In a series of recent rulings, the court has narrowed the
circumstances in which the rule can be invoked. As a result,
prosecutors now can use evidence illegally seized by police in all
deportation cases, grand jury and civil tax hearings and in some other
legal proceedings.

The justices never have ruled that the exclusionary rule does not
apply to sentencing, but the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did so
in upholding Alishia Pryor's prison sentence for her crack cocaine
conviction.

Pryor pleaded guilty in 1997 to possessing and intending to distribute
the 22.4 grams of crack cocaine police found in her car while
arresting her.

Police that same day also searched Pryor's home, where they found
another 391.3 grams of the illegal drug. But authorities concede that
the court warrant police used to enter her home was defective.

Court records do not disclose Pryor's hometown, but her federal
prosecution took place in the district court based in
Tallahassee.

As part of a plea bargain, prosecutors agreed not to use as evidence
any of the cocaine taken from Pryor's home. But that evidence was used
when Pryor was sentenced to 11 years and four months in prison.

Her self-authored appeal said federal sentencing guidelines would have
yielded a prison term about half that long if her sentence had been
based only the cocaine found in her car.

``Evidence obtained illegally ... should not be included in the
information at sentencing,'' Pryor's Supreme Court appeal contended.
The 11th Circuit court rejected that argument.

Asked by the justices to respond to Pryor's appeal, Justice Department
lawyers said the appeals court was right.

``In declining to extend the exclusionary rule to sentencing
proceedings, the court of appeals ... correctly balanced the competing
interests,'' the government lawyers said.

``Extension of the exclusionary rule to sentencing would not likely
provide a significant deterrent to illegal searches and seizures,''
they said. ``Police officers already are deterred ... by the knowledge
that the direct and indirect fruits of such violations will be
excluded at the criminal trial.''