Show me the remedy

Publius has a thoughtful post up arguing that yesterday's Supreme Court decision is not as bad as it looks.

You will recall that the Court decided that the "exclusionary rule" was not the appropriate remedy for police failing to knock and announce themselves before conducting a search with a warrant. Some have argued that this essentially immaculates the fourth amendment. Publius thinks otherwise. The heart of his argument is this:

First, the exclusionary rule is not a right. It’s a remedy. For instance, let’s say the police barge into your house and see the blow, assault rifle, kiddie porn, and emails from Ken Lay sitting on your table. For you to be convicted, this contraband must be admitted into evidence. Otherwise, there is (logically speaking) no factual foundation for your conviction. To be grossly general for now, the exclusionary rule “excludes” this stuff from being admitted as evidence if the police violated your Fourth Amendment rights to get it. Thus, the exclusionary rule itself is not a right. It’s the remedy that vindicates your Fourth Amendment right and gives that right its teeth. [There’s a deeper philosophical question about whether the line between right and remedy is a coherent one, but let’s put that aside for today.]

The exclusionary rule, however, is not the only possible remedy. For instance, the remedy could be a federal civil rights suit against the police department, or even throwing the offending officers in jail. The point is that there is a whole range of potential remedies. The exclusionary rule is just one of many. And it’s an extreme one because, in order to deter bad conduct, it always lets a guilty person go free.

Frankly, I'm not sure I agree with Publius. I want to wait to see if alternative remedies really do exist and are supported by the Court. As someone from Missouri might say, "show me."