A contingent suppression order is an order which is supposed to be implemented only if another order is implemented first (Rolando, 2006). An example of a contingent suppression order would be to decide a specific case if the supreme case have decided it before. Judges and Lawyers do not like to work with these orders, given the dynamism of events in the current world. E.g. the rapid change in the technological world today would imply that very few cases if any have been decided by the supreme courts in the past pertaining to the technologically based crimes. Constitutional criminal procedure on the other hand is how a suspect is handled and processed through the criminal justice system constitutionally.
From the article and few debates in American Law critics have shown aggression on the exclusion of the unconstitutionally obtained evidence based on the previously decided cases (precedent). The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments forbid the possession of reliable substantiation when complied with, rather than on the exclusionary statute which operates only when these substantive lawful provisions are desecrated.
One major limitation of the constitutional suppression order is that not every issue in criminal procedure have a U.S. Supreme Court to offer and answer. This leads to judges being faced by totally new cases whose decision does not exist. This necessitates the importance of constitutional supremacy rather than mere contingent suppression orders (Totten, 2008). There would be divergent suggestions as pertains to what is supposed to be decided since cases would be similar but there is a slight difference which makes the ruling to take a dramatic turn and hence highly advocate for constitutional supremacy.
There will always be the probability of a grouping of facts and state of affairs that don’t neatly fit into the preceding composition of cases, so contingent suppression orders can’t provide a response, and the courts will struggle to present an answer. Based on the above discussion I highly discourage contingent suppression orders due to the many demerits that are outweighed by the merits.
I am of the view that contingent suppression orders are not the best to be applied in any nation. Courts should strive to deal with the issue at hand unless it is found that a case in court is a replica of a similar case that was decided by the Supreme Court. The only way to correctly analyze whether the rights of the charged have been met or desecrated is to know what the premises are to start with (Safferling, 2001). It is evident from the mentioned amendments that the constitution provides a clear way of deciding any case and hence no importance of following contingent orders unless it turns out to be a necessity.
In conclusion, when one needs to draw a conclusion about criminal procedure it is always challenging especially if there is more than one source. In such situations the federal constitution should always be the primary source followed by state constitution, state and federal statutes regarding criminal law, cases from federal and State Statutes and finally the federal rules of criminal procedure.