赫林案与戴维斯案创设善意例外新情形,反映出非法证据排除规则威慑效用被弱化,但其作为通过威慑救济第四修正案的手段具有不可替代性,无法被民事救济和警察系统内部惩戒替代。两个案件引入的过错归责原则缩小了非法证据排除规则的适用空间,反映出对犯罪控制价值的倾向。而引发争议的成本收益分析模式无法通过精确的数据计算予以量化。我国完善非法证据排除规则应在单向制裁原理中引入救济原理,发挥警察惩戒机制的威慑作用,坚持以过错认定责任,规定排除非法证据的法官不能继续参与案件审理,不考虑成本收益的判断标准,追求犯罪控制和权利保障的平衡。The establishment of a new bona fide exception in the Herring and Davis cases reflects that the deterrent effect of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence has been weakened, but it is irreplaceable as a means of passing the Fourth Amendment to deterrent relief, and cannot be replaced by civil relief and internal punishment in the police system. The principle of fault attribution introduced in the two cases narrows the application space of the rule of exclusion of illegal evidence, reflecting the tendency to control the value of crime. The controversial cost-benefit analysis model cannot be quantified by accurate data calculation. To improve the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China, we should introduce the relief principle into the principle of one-way sanctions, give full play to the deterrent role of the police disciplinary mechanism, adhere to the determination of liability by fault, stipulate that judges who exclude illegal evidence cannot continue to participate in the trial of cases, do not consider the criteria of cost-benefit judgment, and pursue the balance between crime control and rights protection.
