suggestion that there exist alternatives to the exclusionary rule. He complains that this very statement “conveys the impression that one possibility is as effective as the next,” while, in his opinion, there is only one alternative to the rule of exclusion – and that is “no sanction at all.” Murphy openly questions the Court's suggestion of self-regulation, scoffing at the notion of expecting “a District Attorney to prosecute himself…for well-meaning violations of the search and seizure clause during a raid the District Attorney…[has] ordered.” Murphy suggests another alternative, somewhat parenthetically, whereas a trespass action for damages could be used as “a venerable means of securing reparation for unauthorized invasion of the home.” Rutledge's dissent Associate Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge writes a dissenting opinion, with which Justice Frank Murphy concurs. He rejects the Court's conclusion that the mandate of the Fourth Amendment, though binding on the states, does not carry with it the sanction of the exclusionary rule. He agrees with Justice Murphy's assertion that the “Amendment without the sanction is a dead letter.” He also rejects the Court's suggestion that Congress could genuinely enact legislation that would permit the use in federal courts of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, noting that this issue had previously – and negatively – been settled in Boyd v. United States. Justice Rutledge concludes by saying that the Court makes “the illegality of this search and seizure its inarticulate premise of decision.” He concurs with this premise, and believes that the conviction should be reversed. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 338 Palko v. Connecticut References External links United States Supreme Court cases United States Fourth Amendment case law 1949 in United States case law Incorporation case law 1949 in Colorado Legal history of Colorado Overruled United States Supreme Court decisions United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court