Week 6 Critical Thinking
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Central Georgia Technical College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
103
Subject
Law
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by clwainwright
The Exclusionary Rule
Cassidy Wainwright
CRJ103
Professor Stateson
11/26/2023
The Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is used to prevent any act of police misconduct and to protect citizens from
unlawful search and seizure. It does so by stating “that any evidence obtained by the government
in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure is not
admissible in a criminal prosecution to prove guilt.” (Carmen, 2018) This does not, however,
cover any other violated rights protected under other Amendments such as the Fifth, Sixth or
Fourteenth. Evidence collected in violation of those rights can still be inadmissible in court, they
are just not protected under this rule exclusively. This rule applies to any type of law
enforcement, whether local, state, or federal and it was designed to primarily focus on police
deterrence, however it also highlights upholding the integrity of the judicial system and protects
our given rights under the Fourth Amendment. (Turner, 2019) The exclusionary rule acts as a
deterrent for misconduct by hoping that if law enforcement officers cannot submit evidence that
is unlawful, then ideally, they will not attempt to gain access to it in the first place, or at least this
action will lessen. However, as most rules and laws go, there are exceptions to the rule. These
exceptions are listed under four separate categories and include Good Faith, Inevitable
Discovery, Purged Taint, and Independent Source. These exceptions, while different in their own
way, all can allow for any evidence to still be admissible in court regards of it being obtained
illegally via misconduct with either the police and/or the court system. With the Good Faith
Exception, it states that any evidence obtained, regardless of if there was an error or mistake
involving law enforcement, can be used only if the error/mistake was either not the fault of the
police directly or if it was their fault, it was an honest mistake and was done with good reason,
therefore claiming it as “good faith.” There are several cases that have led to the Good Faith
Exception such as Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 [1984] or Arizona v. Evans, 514
U.S. 1 [1995] whereas the misconduct came from the judge or another court employee. Also,
cases such as Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 [1987] and Davis v. United States 564 U.S. [2011]
apply here as they were considered constitutional at the time of occurrence, but the actions taken
were later deemed unconstitutional. The next exception is the Inevitable Discovery Exception,
which states that evidence can be used regardless of misconduct if it is deemed that law
enforcement would have found it under means which would have been lawful, and they must be
able to prove this. This is in place due to cases like Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 [1984], which
had Williams arrested for the murder of a little girl whose body he disposed. A search was
started for the girl’s body and during this search, Williams was questioned. Williams gave a
statement that included the location of the body, yet he was never given an attorney. The body
and other evidence found was deemed as admissible due to police saying that the search party
would have eventually found the body. (Oyez, 2023) Then there is the Purged Taint Exception,
which states that if a defendant’s action’s following the illegally obtained evidence is done
voluntary, then any evidence used is no longer considered to be tainted. Wong Sun v. United
States, 371 U.S. 471 [1963] is the perfect case for this as the police decided to break into his
home and gain a confession. The confession was given but the suspect refused to sign it and
therefore he was released on his own. However, the suspect later voluntarily went to the police
station and signed the statement, making how it was obtained no longer seen as illegal. This
exception can also be seen in cases like Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) and Taylor v.
Alabama, 457 U.S. 687 [1982]. Lastly, there is the Independent Source Exception, which states
that evidence can be used if law enforcement can in fact prove that it was gathered from an
independent source and not obtained through an illegal search or seizure, like in United States v.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Crews, 445 U.S. 463 [1980]. This was where the suspect was detained illegally, however the
court still chose to proceed as the evidence collected was done so correctly, and therefore the
prosecution should get to call into question the suspect’s guilt. This is also seen in other cases
such as State v. O’Bremski, 423 P.2d 530 [1967] where “a 14-year-old girl was found in the
defendant’s apartment during an illegal search. The girl’s testimony that the defendant had
sexual relations with her was admissible because she was an independent source that pre- dated
the search of the apartment.” (Carmen, 2018)
References
Carmen, R. D. (2016). Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice
(10th ed.). Cengage Learning US. https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781305854949
Nix v. Williams. (n.d.). Oyez
. Retrieved November 27, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1651
Turner, J. I. (2019). The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: A comparative ... - SMU Jenia I. Turner
. SMU. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1368&context=law_faculty