I dissent.
The Attorney General does not question the patent unlawfulness of the search and seizure conducted in this case by two Long Beach police officers. Thus, the issue to be decided is whether the voters, by adopting Proposition 8, intended to allow such illegalities to go undeterred by the vicarious exclusionary rule. In light of the long history of jurisprudence in this state surrounding this rule, and the vague, imprecise and inconclusive language of the assertedly relevant portion of Proposition 8, I am compelled to conclude that the voters intended no such result.
*900I. History of the Vicarious Exclusionary Rule in California
In the landmark case of People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513], we held that evidence obtained in violation of the federal or state Constitutions cannot be admitted in a criminal trial. We judged this remedy to be necessary for two reasons. First, it deters police misconduct: “without fear of punishment or other discipline, law enforcement officers, sworn to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California, frankly admit their deliberate, flagrant acts in violation of both Constitutions and the laws enacted thereunder. ” (Id. at pp. 437-438.) Second, the rule is necessary because it preserves the integrity of the judicial system and of the government as a whole: “When, as in the present case, the very purpose of an illegal search and seizure is to get evidence to introduce at a trial, the success of the lawless venture depends entirely on the court’s lending its aid by allowing the evidence to be introduced. It is no answer to say that a distinction should be drawn between the government acting as law enforcer and the gatherer of evidence and the government acting as judge.” (Id. at p. 445.) “It is morally incongruous for the state to flout constitutional rights and at the same time demand that its citizens observe the law.” (Id. at p. 446.)
The court addressed the objection that the exclusionary rule is not a proper remedy for unlawful conduct by the police. The thrust of this argument is that the purpose of a trial is to find the truth, and thus there is a premium on the introduction of any evidence having probative value. Additionally, a criminal dangerous to society should not be allowed to go free simply because the police committed errors in his capture. (Id. at pp. 442-443.) But this court, in Cahan and in many cases since, has recognized that the exclusionary rule is the only effective sanction to deter police misconduct: neither administrative, criminal, nor civil remedies have been adequate for the purpose. (Id. at p. 447; People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal.2d 755, 760 [290 P.2d 855]; Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 150, 156 [98 Cal.Rptr. 649, 491 P.2d 1].) Thus, the arguments against the exclusionary rule are better aimed at the substantive rights guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions: when a criminal escapes punishment because evidence is excluded at trial, it is not “because the constable blundered, but because the Constitutions prohibit securing the evidence against him. Their very provisions contemplate that it is preferable that some criminals go free than that the right of privacy of all the people be set at naught.” (People v. Cahan, supra, 44 Cal.2d at p. 449.) In short, “ ‘The exclusion of the evidence is the only sanction which makes the rule effective. It is the rule, not the sanction, which imposes limits on the operation of the police. If the rule is obeyed as it should be, and as we declare it should be, there *901will be no illegally obtained evidence to be excluded by the operation of the sanction. ’ ” (Id. at p. 450, fn. *.)
One year after Cahan, this court adopted the vicarious exclusionary rule in People v. Martin, supra, 45 Cal.2d 755. The police, after unlawfully searching a small office in which the defendant was present, arrested him and charged him with bookmaking and keeping premises for the purpose of bookmaking. The defendant disclaimed any interest in the premises searched, and thus could not claim that his own constitutional rights had been violated. We held that “Since all of the reasons that compelled us to adopt the exclusionary rule are applicable whenever evidence is obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees, such evidence is inadmissible whether or not it was obtained in violation of the particular defendant’s constitutional rights.” (Id. at p. 761.) The need to deter police misconduct, the ineffectiveness of all other remedies but the exclusionary rule, and the importance of avoiding judicial participation in unlawful acts, do not depend on whether the defendant’s own rights were violated. Further, to limit challenges to violations of only the defendant’s constitutional rights “virtually invites law enforcement officers to violate the rights of third parties and to trade the escape of a criminal whose rights are violated for the conviction of others by the use of the evidence illegally obtained against them.” (Id. at p. 760.) “[I]f law enforcement officers are allowed to evade the exclusionary rule by obtaining evidence in violation of the rights of third parties, its deterrent effect is to that extent nullified.” (Ibid.)
Thus, to deter police misconduct and to prohibit police from profiting from their unlawful acts, the vicarious exclusionary rule came to be. This rule is now firmly established in California jurisprudence. (See Kaplan v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 157, 161, and cases cited.) Indeed, it is so much a part of the law of this state that it “should be a commonplace to any attorney engaged in criminal trials.” (People v. Ibarra (1963) 60 Cal.2d 460, 465 [34 Cal.Rptr. 863, 386 P.2d 487].) In Ibarra, the defense attorney failed to object to the introduction of unlawfully seized evidence because he was unaware of the Martin rule. We held this to be such a flagrant error as to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at p. 466.)
The federal standard for the exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence is markedly different. In Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128 [58 L.Ed.2d 387, 99 S.Ct. 421], the United States Supreme Court held that only those defendants whose own constitutional rights were infringed have standing to challenge the legality of a search. The court shifted its focus from the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule to the personal nature of Fourth Amendment rights: “since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate *902the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment [citation], it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule’s protections.” (Id. at p. 134 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 395].) Thus, the court collapsed the standing issue into a substantive Fourth Amendment inquiry. (Id. at p. 139 [58 L.Ed.2d at p. 398],)1
II. The Construction of Section 28, Subdivision (d)
The majority hold that section 28, subdivision (d), of article I of the Constitution (hereinafter section 28(d)), adopted as part of Proposition 8, mandates obedience by California courts to the federal standard. The section provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding .... Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code, Sections 352, 782 or 1103. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory or constitutional right of the press.” (Italics added.)2
A constitutional amendment is to be construed in the same manner as a statute. (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 245 [149 Cal.Rptr. 239]; Winchester v. Mabury (1898) 122 Cal. 522, 527 [55 P. 393]; McMillan v. Siemon (1940) 36 Cal.App.2d 721, 726 [98 P.2d 790].) The amendment “must receive a liberal, practical common-sense construction .... [It] should be construed in accordance with the natural and ordinary meaning of its words.” (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245; In re Quinn (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 473, 482 [110 Cal.Rptr. 881].) Equally important, however, is the presumption against implied repeal of statutes and constitutional provisions; courts must undertake to reconcile potential conflicts whenever they arise. (In re Thierry *903S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [139 Cal.Rptr. 708, 566 P.2d 610]; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588 [35 Cal.Rptr. 601, 387 P.2d 377]; Cannon v. American Hydrocarbon Corp. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 639, 648 [84 Cal.Rptr. 575].) Further, when the drafters of an enactment use language that has previously been judicially construed, they are presumed to use it in the sense placed on it by the courts. (Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 734 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161]; Buchwald v. Katz (1972) 8 Cal.3d 493, 502 [105 Cal.Rptr. 368, 503 P.2d 1376].) Also, it is well recognized that “The literal language of enactments may be disregarded to avoid absurd results and to fulfill the apparent intent of the framers.” (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245.) The majority’s interpretation of section 28(d) results in an implied repeal of a fundamental aspect of article I, section 24, of the Constitution, ignores judicial precedent construing the language used by the drafters of section 28(d), and produces “absurd results” in light of the avowed purposes of Proposition 8.
A. The Presumption Against Implied Repeal
The people of this state have the power to repeal provisions of the Constitution by voting on an initiative or a legislative proposal. (Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1, 3.) Yet that power must be unambiguously exercised. “Even where one of two inconsistent [enactments] is later than the other and . . . does not purport to continue the other in operation, it is settled that there is a presumption against repeal by implication, that to overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent as to prevent their concurrent operation, and that the courts are bound to maintain the integrity of both [enactments] if they may stand together.” (Warne v. Harkness, supra, 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588; accord, In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty etc. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189 [323 P.2d 753].)3 The majority’s reading of section 28(d) results in a substantial repeal of article I, section 24, and article I, section 13, of the Constitution. Section 24 reads in pertinent part: “Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” Section 13 protects the people of this state from unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to reconcile section 28(d) with section 24 and section 13, it is necessary to examine the history and meaning of the latter two provisions.
It is a basic premise of constitutional law that the states may adopt search and seizure rules affording greater protection to their citizens than is re*904quired by the United States Constitution. (Alderman v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 165, 175 [22 L.Ed.2d 176, 187-188, 89 S.Ct. 961]; Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58, 62 [17 L.Ed.2d 730, 734, 87 S.Ct. 788].) “[T]he California Constitution is, and always has been, a document of independent force. Any other result would contradict not only the most fundamental principles of federalism but also the historic bases of state charters.” (People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 549-550 [119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099].) Thus article I, section 13, of the Constitution has a life of its own, separate from the jurisprudence surrounding the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As we stated in Brisendine (id. at pp. 550-551), “in determining that California citizens are entitled to greater protection under the California Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures than that required by the United States Constitution, we are embarking on no revolutionary course. Rather we are simply reaffirming a basic principle of federalism—that the nation as a whole is composed of distinct geographical and political entities bound together by a fundamental federal law but nonetheless independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens.”
It was to codify this fundamental principle that the people of California adopted section 24 at the November 1974 General Election. The ballot pamphlet distributed to all voters explained that section 24 “clarifies existing law” by providing, inter alia, that “rights guaranteed by the State Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the federal Constitution. ” (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends, to Cal. Const, with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1974), analysis by Legislative Analyst, p. 26.) The measure was overwhelmingly approved by 70.5 percent of the voters.
That the exclusionary rule and the principle of vicarious standing are fundamental aspects of California’s constitutional law cannot be doubted. In People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2d 268 [38 Cal.Rptr. 1, 391 P.2d 393], the defendant was able to challenge the constitutionality of the arrest and search of a third party. (Id. at p. 274.) We held that “The rule that requires a reversal where incriminatory evidence has been secured by means of an illegal search is not a mere technical rule of evidence. It is based on the fundamental concept that such a rule is required in order to give substance to the rights conferred by the provisions of our federal and state Constitutions prohibiting such seizures.” (Id. at p. 275, italics added.) And in Kaplan v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 161, we observed that this court has repeatedly reaffirmed Martin and its raison d’etre as a “necessary adjunct” to Cahan. As in People v. Brisendine, supra, 13 Cal.3d 528, 551, “The ultimate confirmation of our conclusion occurred, finally, when the *905people adopted article I, section 24, of the California Constitution at the November 1974 election . . . ,”4
In light of this history I cannot accept the argument that such a firmly established and fundamental rule, incorporated in section 13 and section 24 as a basic provision of California constitutional law, was impliedly overruled by the broad, nonspecific language of Proposition 8. Nothing on the face of section 28(d) or the ballot materials assertedly explaining it explicitly mentions section 24, section 13, or the exclusionary rule. Yet it is evident that the drafters knew very well how to repeal specific portions of the Constitution if they wished to do so: e.g., section 2 of Proposition 8 expressly deletes article I, section 12, of the Constitution, which afforded most accused persons the right to be released on bail while awaiting trial. In stark contrast is the vague and general language of section 28(d) and the ballot information interpreting it.
The majority direct us to the analysis by the Legislative Analyst contained in the voter pamphlet. The portion relating to section 28(d) declares in part, “Under current law, certain evidence is not permitted to be presented in a criminal trial or hearing. For example, evidence obtained through . . . unlawful searches of persons or property, cannot be used in court. This measure generally would allow most relevant evidence to be presented in criminal cases .... The measure could not affect federal restrictions on the use of evidence.” (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends, to Cal. Const, with arguments to voters, Primary Elec. (June 8, 1982) p. 32, italics in original (hereafter Ballot Pamp.).) But to say that “most” evidence “generally” would be allowed to be presented is hardly a clear mandate that all California exclusionary rules are to be abrogated. And the statement regarding the continued vitality of federal exclusionary rules does not necessarily imply the demise of all state rules. Nowhere does the Legislative Analyst state, as the majority claim, that “unlawfully seized evidence would become admissible except to the extent that the federal Constitution forbids its use.” (Ante, at p. 886.) Indeed, that there is no such statement anywhere in the ballot materials indicates that the majority’s interpretation of section 28(d) is not compelled. As the majority note, section 28(d) has been described as “the most ambiguous and least understood section of Proposition 8.” (Assem. Com. on Crim. Justice, Analysis of Prop. 8, Mar. 24, 1982, p. 10.) *906(Ante, at p. 886, fn. 6.)5 The vague, nonspecific language of section 28(d) simply does not repeal the clear mandate of section 24 or the exclusionary rules embodied therein.6
B. The Controlling Authority of Prior Judicial Construction
The result I reach is mandated by a further principle of statutory and constitutional construction: “ ‘where the legislature uses terms already judicially construed, “the presumption is almost irresistible that it used them in the precise and technical sense which had been placed upon them by the courts.” ’ ” (People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347, 355 [74 Cal.Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33], quoting from City of Long Beach v. Marshall (1938) 11 Cal.2d 609, 620 [82 P.2d 362]; accord, Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, supra, 30 Cal.3d 721, 734; In re Jeanice D. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 210, 216 [168 Cal.Rptr. 455, 617 P.2d 1087]; Buchwald v. Katz, supra, 8 Cal.3d 493, 502.) Thus we must presume that the drafters were aware of judicial decisions construing the language used in section 28(d), and that they intended a construction consistent with those decisions. (Palos Verdes Faculty Assn. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 650, 659 [147 Cal.Rptr. 359, 580 P.2d 1155]; Stafford v. Realty Bond Service Corp. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 797, 805 [249 P.2d 241].)
In Kaplan v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, we addressed a challenge substantially similar to that presented here. In Kaplan, a police officer *907had seen a car speeding. As he turned on his red light to signal the driver to stop, the officer observed a passenger hide something in his coat from under the front seat. On the theory that the “something” was a weapon, the officer ordered the passenger from the car and subjected him to a patdown search. In the course of the search, the officer felt a lump he was “pretty sure . . . was not a weapon,” but having “an idea it was pills,” placed the passenger under arrest and reached inside his shirt pocket. The lump consisted of a number of LSD tablets in a plastic bag. In exchange for a promise of immunity, the passenger testified that the defendant, another passenger, had sold him the pills. Under Martin the defendant would have had standing to challenge the search pursuant to the vicarious exclusionary rule; under federal law he would not. (Alderman v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. 165, 171-176 [22 L.Ed.2d 176, 185-188].) All parties conceded that the search was unlawful. The issue was whether then newly enacted Evidence Code section 351, stating that “Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible,” repealed the Martin rule.
We held that it did not. After reviewing the history of the vicarious standing rule, and emphasizing how deeply embedded it was in the law of California, we concluded that “ ‘We do not believe that such a firmly established and fundamental rule of the criminal law of years’ standing was overruled by any vague and indecisive provision in the Evidence Code—nor do we believe that the Legislature so intended.’” (6 Cal.3d at p. 161, quoting People v. Starr (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 574, 583 [89 Cal.Rptr. 906].)
The Attorney General argues that Kaplan is distinguishable because our holding there was assertedly based on legislative intent. Section 351 was part of a massive revision of California evidence law into an Evidence Code that would leave some rules intact while overhauling others. We stressed that whenever the drafters meant to repeal or change existing law, they spelled out in their official comments the precise consequences of their action and the statutes or case law it affected. {Id. at p. 158.) We concluded that “In view of the commission’s painstaking analysis of many evidentiary rules that are of less importance and notoriety than Martin, its deafening silence on this point cannot be deemed the product of oversight. It can only mean the commission did not intend—and the code therefore does not accomplish—a change in the Martin rule.” {Id. at p. 159.) The Attorney General’s reasoning that Kaplan is inapposite misses the point. It is not how we reached our conclusion in Kaplan that is decisive in the case at bar; the determinative factor for purposes of statutory construction is that we did reach that conclusion—i.e., that the language used was incapable of effecting the result in question.7 In section 28(d) the drafters of Proposition 8 *908chose to use language that is the mirror image of Evidence Code section 351: while section 351 provides that “all relevant evidence is admissible,” section 28(d) states that “relevant evidence shall not be excluded.”
Accordingly, I believe we are compelled to interpret section 28(d) in light of the Kaplan decision, and we must assume that the framers of the section chose its language with knowledge of Kaplan. In light of the “deafening silence” of a contrary intent, as discussed above, it must therefore be concluded that they did not intend section 28(d) to abrogate the rule of vicarious standing or other independent state grounds for the exclusion of evidence.
C. Voter Intent and Avoidance of Absurd Results
One of the cardinal principles of statutory and constitutional construction is that an enactment must be read to avoid absurd results and to fulfill the intent of the framers. (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245.) The majority’s interpretation of section 28(d) would lead to absurd results counter to the stated purposes of Proposition 8. Further, I cannot agree that the voters “clearly” intended to subordinate California’s law of exclusion to the federal standard.
The purpose of Proposition 8 is set forth in its section 3, now article I, section 28, subdivision (a), of the Constitution.8 That section states in part that Proposition 8 is “a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system to fully protect those rights . . . .” The section goes on to proclaim that “The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system, encompassing . . . the . . . basic expectation that persons who commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will *909be appropriately detained in custody, tried by the courts, and sufficiently punished so that the public safety is protected . . . .” The avowed purpose of Proposition 8 is thus to implement safeguards for victims of crimes and to deal more harshly with violent criminals.
If we were to accept the majority’s reading of section 28(d), absurd results manifestly counter to the purposes of Proposition 8 would follow. For example, Evidence Code section 352.1, which prevents the introduction into open court of a rape victim’s address and telephone number, would be repealed. A victim who testified at the trial could have his religious beliefs introduced and challenged in court, without the protective shield of Evidence Code section 789. Evidence Code section 786 would be repealed, permitting a general attack on the character of a victim-witness apart from his reputation for honesty. Evidence Code section 787 would be repealed, allowing “defense counsel [to] attack the credibility of police officers, victims and other prosecution witnesses with any relevant evidence of specific instances of bad conduct. Were they expelled from school for cheating? A thorough investigation of the witness’ background will turn up numerous possibilities.” (Uelmen, Gann’s Bonanza for Defense Counsel, in Criminal Practice after Proposition 8 (Cont.Ed.Bar 1982) p. 7.) Thus the majority’s interpretation of section 28(d) would violate subdivision (a) of section 28 by removing safeguards that California law gives to victims. I cannot believe that such was the will of the voters.9
To give meaning to the language of a constitutional provision created by initiative, courts may look to the ballot summary and analysis and arguments presented to the electorate. (Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 245-246.) However, as I explained above, nothing in the voter pamphlet specifies that Proposition 8 repeals all independent California grounds for the *910exclusion of evidence in criminal trials. Additionally, in the case of complex initiative measures it is often difficult to rely on ballot information to discern voter intent: “There are two factors which greatly inhibit [the electorate’s] thoughtful consideration of the issues presented by all but the most simple initiative: the complexity of the ballot measure and the nature of the political campaign waged in its behalf.” (Note, The California Initiative Process: A Suggestion for Reform (1975) 48 So.Cal.L.Rev. 922, 934.) When a ballot proposal is lengthy “only the most diligent voter [will] wade through [it]” {id. at p. 935), the result being a “superficial intellectual exercise that leaves voters vulnerable to emotional—and perhaps misleading—advertising.” {Id. at p. 936.) Proposition 8 is undeniably long and complex: it adds one section containing seven subdivisions to the Constitution, and repeals one section thereof; it also adds five sections to the Penal Code and three more to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Another problem arises when a ballot measure affects many different rules of law. Even if arguendo Proposition 8 is not violative of the one-subject rule for the purpose of qualifying the whole measure for the ballot (Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 252-253, but see pp. 262-299), it remains speculative to rely on “voter intent” as it relates to any one provision. “[A] proposition may contain 20 good features, but have one bad one secreted among the 20 good ones. The busy voter does not have the time to devote to the study of long, wordy, propositions and must rely upon such sketchy information as may be received through the press, radio or picked up in general conversation. If improper emphasis is placed upon one feature and the remaining features ignored, or if there is a failure to study the entire proposed amendment, the voter may be misled as to the over-all effect of the proposed amendment.” (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends, to Cal. Const, with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 1948), argument in favor of Prop. 10, p. 8.) Given the complexity and length of Proposition 8 and the vagueness of the language of section 28(d), it is impossible to discern a “clear intent” of the electorate to abrogate independent state grounds for the exclusion of evidence.
Under a proper construction of section 28(d), the trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized in the case at bar. Both parties concede that the search was unreasonable under California law. Because I believe section 28(d) did not repeal the vicarious exclusionary rule or other existing state grounds for the exclusion of evidence, I would hold that Lance had standing to challenge the unlawful search.
When constitutional rights are implicated, the end cannot justify the means. The evidence is therefore inadmissible, and there appearing no other *911grounds in the record to uphold the search, I conclude that the order appealed from should be reversed.
Bird, C. J., and Reynoso, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 21, 1985, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Bird, C. J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
The lack of a vicarious exclusionary rule can lead to flagrant abuses by the government. For example, in United States v. Paynor (1980) 447 U.S. 727 [65 L.Ed.2d 468, 100 S.Ct. 2439], the Internal Revenue Service launched an investigation into financial activities of Americans in the Bahamas. Pursuant to this scheme, a government agent authorized an informant’s employee to ask a bank official to dinner. While they were at the restaurant, another informant broke into the official’s apartment, stole his briefcase, photocopied the contents, and replaced the briefcase. Information leading to the defendant’s undisclosed bank account was found. Although the Supreme Court admitted that measures taken to deter this type of conduct appeared “less positive than one might expect from an agency charged with upholding the law” (id. at p. 733, fn. 5 [65 L.Ed.2d at p. 475]), it denied the defendant standing to challenge the search: “To require ... the suppression of highly probative evidence in a trial against a third party would penalize society unnecessarily.” (Id. at p. 734, fn. 5 [65 L.Ed.2d at p. 475].) The court seemingly was unconcerned with the stigma society and the judicial process suffer from such abusive governmental activity.
The full text of Proposition 8, its analysis by the Legislative Analyst, and the ballot arguments for and against it are reprinted in the appendix to Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236, 300-306 [186 Cal.Rptr. 30, 651 P.2d 274],
The majority rely on the rule that this canon of construction does not apply to cases in which there is evidence of contrary legislative or popular intent. As I will explain below, there is no indication in section 28(d) of any such intent on the part of the voters.
Indeed, even the majority seem to recognize that the vicarious exclusionary rule is deeply embedded in our Constitution. Nevertheless they inconsistently assert that “Neither [the exclusionary rule nor the vicarious exclusionary rule] is itself part of article I, section 13” (ante, at p. 887), and at the same time acknowledge our holding that the vicarious exclusionary rule has “become one that [is] mandated by . . . the . . . state Constitution!]” (ante, at p. 890).
The ballot arguments by the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8 provide even less support for the majority’s conclusion. First, as the majority fail to point out, these arguments relate to the whole of Proposition 8, not just section 28(d). Second, these arguments are even more vague than the Legislative Analyst’s analysis. For example, Lieutenant Governor Mike Curb asserts that “By voting ‘yes’ on the Victims’ Bill of Rights you will' restore balance to the rules governing the use of evidence against criminals” (Ballot Pamp., p. 34). How the balance is to be restored is not explained. Governor Deukmejian, then the Attorney General, states: “higher courts of this state have created additional rights for the criminally accused and placed more restrictions on law enforcement officers. This proposition will overcome some of the adverse decisions by our higher courts.” {Ibid.) Which decisions, and what rules of law they affect, are not listed.
One problem with ballot arguments, which we noted in Carlos v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 131, 143 [197 Cal.Rptr. 79, 672 P.2d 862], footnote 11, is that “they are stronger on political rhetoric than on legal analysis.” For example, Paul Gann writes: “[The People] are not only victims of crime, they are victims of our criminal justice system—the liberal reformers, lenient judges and behavior modification do-gooders who release hardened criminals again and again to victimize the innocent.” (Ballot Pamp., p. 35.) Such remarks hardly indicate a clear intent on the part of the voters to achieve a result that was nowhere clearly indicated.
In Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 257, we stated that “it would have been wholly unrealistic to require the proponents of Proposition 8 to anticipate and specify in advance every change in existing statutory provisions which could be expected to result from the adoption of that measure.” (Italics added.) However, it is one thing to expect every detail of every statute affected by section 28(d) to be specified, and quite another to expect at least some mention of section 24, the constitutional umbrella covering all these provisions.
The Attorney General also argues that Kaplan rested on the proviso to section 351:
*908“Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible.” (Italics added.) We did hold that the Martin rule, although not “required by” the Fourth Amendment, was “based on” the constitutionally compelled exclusionary rule, and thus fell within the proviso. (Kaplan, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 161.) However, this was an alternate ground of decision; our conclusion that section 351 was ineffective to repeal Martin and independent state exclusionary rules in general was a separate and determinative holding.
The full text of section 28, subdivision (a), reads: “The People of the State of California find and declare that the enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system to fully protect those rights, is a matter of grave statewide concern, [f] The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system, encompassing not only the right to restitution from the wrongdoers for financial losses suffered as a result of criminal acts, but also the more basic expectation that persons who commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will be appropriately detained in custody, tried by the courts, and sufficiently punished so that the public safety is protected and encouraged as a goal of highest importance. [1] Such public safety extends to public primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high school campuses, where students and staff have the right to be safe and secure in their persons. [1] To accomplish these goals, broad reforms in the procedural treatment of accused persons and the disposition and sentencing of convicted persons are necessary and proper as deterrents to criminal behavior and to serious disruption of people’s lives.”
I note in passing that the majority of cases in which evidence is excluded under the Cahan and Martin rules involve victimless, nonviolent crimes. (Kamisar, The exclusionary rule in historical perspective: the struggle to make the Fourth Amendment more than ‘an empty blessing’ (1979) 62 Judicature 337, 341; Kaplan, The Limits of the Exclusionary Rule (1974) 26 Stan.L.Rev. 1027, 1028; Silberman, Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice (1978) p. 254.) Thus, the major impact of California exclusionary rules do not implicate victims’ rights at all.
Amicus curiae for respondent raises the specter that under the vicarious exclusionary rule defendants would be permitted to challenge unlawful searches of their victims. The fear is unfounded. Amicus points to, and I can find, only one case following Martin that permitted a defendant to suppress evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the victim’s constitutional rights. (People v. Jager (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 792, 798-800 [303 P.2d 115].) Numerous cases since then have demonstrated the courts’ refusal to deem such evidence inadmissible. (E.g., People v. Solario (1977) 19 Cal.3d 760, 764 [139 Cal.Rptr. 725, 566 P.2d 627]; Pating v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 608, 616-617 [182 Cal.Rptr. 20]; People v. Baker (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 68, 72 [175 Cal.Rptr. 121]; People v. Hackett (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 592, 598 [171 Cal.Rptr. 320]; People v. Cook (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 686, 689-690 [138 Cal.Rptr. 263].)