Abstract
Federal courts since the 1970s have often discussed the “shock the conscience” test in the context of transnational criminal investigations. This test purports to exclude from American trials evidence gathered by foreign police through “conscience shocking” methods. No doubt its creators sought to protect the rights of defendants amidst unclear evidentiary standards. But since the test’s creation, its proponents have failed to agree on a consistent explanation for the test’s constitutionality. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent since the 1980s has heaped doubt on the prevailing explanations for the test’s existence. While a lively debate on the “shock the conscience” test’s underlying theory has been waged in the federal judiciary for almost fifty years, exclusion of proffered evidence under the test has occurred in only one case. This comment argues that, because district and appellate courts do not have authority under the Fourth Amendment or their supervisory powers to exercise the “shock the conscience” test, and because courts are seemingly loath to apply its abstract standards, it should be abandoned altogether.
Recommended Citation
Kevin Valleroy,
The Invalidity of the “Shock the Conscience” Test for Evidence Gathered by Foreign Police,
70
St. Louis U. L.J.
(2026).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol70/iss2/9