4 OPINION Tuesday, July 10, 1984 Page 6 The Michigan Daily ,alble ftrdtgan 13 atilt Vol. XCIV, No. 22-S 94 Years of Editorial Freedom Managed and Edited by Students at The University of Michigan Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily Editorial Board Saving the Fourth E XPERTS ON both sides of the ex- clusionary rule debate agree that last week's Supreme Court decision - while pur- porting to create a very narrow exception to the rule - will actually result in a major shift in the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment. Or, more precisely, non-enforcement. The opinion, in casting the issue in terms of a cost/benefit analysis, opens the door to much greater erosions in the rights of individuals than the court cares to let on. The court noted that the exclusionary rule costs the states convictions - apparently an exceedingly precious commodity in the court's view - as as well as a good deal of money. But in embracing on this analysis, the court reduced the Bill of Rights to a set of protections which are valid only as long as they are convenient and relatively inexpensive. The Supreme Court appears to have inven- ted a kind of bastardized negligence standard for guarding the citizenry against uncon- stitutional behavior by government. The Fourth Amendment protection of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" no longer means just that; unreasonable sear- ches .are now permissible if, in the court's view, the police have manifested "objective good faith." The next step? Civil liberties groups must force the critics of the exclusionary rule to live up to the arguments which they used to attack the rule. Many of those critics said they strongly supported the protections of the Fourth Amendment, but that the automatic exclusion of illegally obtained evidence was both judicially awkward and overly harsh in many cases. They argued that other remedies for victims of illegal searches could be just as effective in detering improper police conduct. Let's make them prove it. Now that the protections of the exclusionary rule have been eroded, there should be no objection to making it easier for victims of illegal searches to en- force their rights against police. Lengthy state and federal civil dockets - on which most such suits must languish before coming to trial - must be shortened to make suits possible in the first place. The courts must become more willing to see through com- plicated financial arrangements which often hide the personal assets of police officers from legitimate civil suits. And most importantly, the government ipust make legal services available to those subjected to an arguably illegal search but too poor to pay for their own attorneys. Wasserman TALK P-6-- NO TAu( 5u NO TAK NO TALK NO TALK TALK ;7\ TAUC ITALW NRT AYOUUPTo/ The march of technology; the corruption of pleasure S 0 By John Critchett The big news these days is that attitudes are changing on college campuses. Students are more likely to be seen in the library than attending a political demon- stration. You can even find some pouring over books on Saturday night (in the Law Library, for in- stance). The big theme is jobs: how to get them, where to find them, and what to do with the money you'll make. New words have been coined-yuppy, yum- py, and the like-to describe this trend. Peter's and Waterman's In Search of Excellence is now read before (or instead of) Plato's Republic. We are a generation obsessed with achievement, and we are succeeding. We have gold plated ,water faucets and fancy hood or- naments on our cars. But are we working harder? Are we saving more? Are we being more thrifty in the use of our money? The an- swer to all these questions is "No," but we are still suc- ceeding. Success is not what it used to be. WE ONCE HAD an agrarian based economy. The farmer worked long hard hours in the fields, and when the harvest came, he knew he would have enough food to feed his family during the cold winter months. That was the meaning of success. Consumer goods were purchased infrequently and with great care. When products were expec- ted to last forever (even cars), the only way to give them value was to make them with quality. Good products meant success. What happened? Today we live in a disposable world. Disposable cups, razors, even underwear. Quality as a product feature ranks behind color and sex ap- peal. Work is different too. Some ordinary people who are not heirs or bank robbers are making a lot of money without working very hard. Is this a phenomenon peculiar to our generation? There is an explanation. It is the pursuit of pleasure, crudely, put. People have always been willing to pay for things which give them pleasure or make their lives easier. Most of the disposables are really labor saving devices. The people who are making all the money are singers, movie stars, and athletes who make our lives a little more exciting.'They are also the drug peddlers who provide chemical entertainment for our weary brains. NONE OF THIS is new. There was entertainment in the days of the Dustbowl. But rapidly progressing technology has a way of changing even our enter- tainment. Today the sound effec- ts alone on a good movie may cost $10 million. And more people can watch one baseball game on T.V. than all the stadiums could fill in the 1930s. But technology is a two-edged sword. It gives us a higher stan- dard of living at the expense of obscuring the relationship bet- ween hard work and material achievement. It is no secret that baseball players started earning more when we could watch them on television. Technology is caught in a vicious circle. It both fuels and is fueled by our unquen- chable thirst for pleasure: It provides us both the expensive pleasures we crave and the higher standard of living needed to afford them. We must redefine the meaning of the word "success" in a more technologically enlightened world. We must also recognize a growing danger. The natural world used to protect us from our unbridled imagination. Once upon a time, we might have been thrown off a stubborn horse. Today we could be thrown out of a Maserati at 100 miles an hour. One man comes to mind as an indelible symbol of our new society. His name was John Belushi. He grew up in a little town called Wheaton, Illinois, where the biggest thrill was the new roller skating rink. Unimaginable success poisoned him, more than any drug he ever took. What can one person do with a million dollars? Put it in the bank? It might as well be someone else's money. What can you do with it once you've fed and clothed yourself? He found a chockingly easy answer. We are rightfully proud of our material success. But John Belushi's story is as much a characterization of our society as the proliferation of yuppies. Indeed, they may go hand in hand. Critchett is a graduate student in the School of Business Administration. 0 0