>So there needs to be legislative and/or executive action for that approach, sure. But the underlying point is that the argument for evidence exclusion is a pro

>So there needs to be legislative and/or executive action for that approach, sure. But the underlying point is that the argument for evidence exclusion is a procedural one, which means that innovation on the incentives side of things (carrots or sticks) is entirely possible. In the UK, these rights are merely statutory and exist at the discretion of Parliament (the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty). If Parliament does not create an adequate enforcement mechanism, then that is its will and the legally legitimate outcome. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, however, do not exist at the discretion of Congress. The courts will not allow the Fourth Amendment to become inoperative because Congress and the President fail to enforce it. On the other hand, Congress can and does create statutory rights through legislation, and is free to create as vigorous or as weak an enforcement mechanism for them as it wishes.