Exclusionary Rule And The Rule Of Law

Arguments are powerful in the United State on the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a tool that is used to defend the Fourth Amendment. Is an individual most powerful tool. The exclusionary rule helps ensure the unnecessary search and seizure. Another pros will be shifts the burden of proof away from the individual. There’s a term used that it is powerful when it comes to the exclusionary rule will be “innocent until proven guilty”. They are guilty when you are being

If the trial judge did not exclude the evidence from the trial, then the Supreme Court must overturn the conviction. In some cases, the accused will be retried without the use of the illegally obtained evidence. In other cases, there will not be a retrial because the illegally obtained evidence was the basis of the prosecution's case. The story of the birth and evolution of the exclusionary rule is complex and demonstrates the unique problems the Supreme Court has had to face when interpreting the Fourth Amendment."

The U.S Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule to prevent the use of inappropriate behavior and violations of an individual’s rights by government officials through the use of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule protects the rights of the people under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and requires evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of government violations cannot be used as proof of guilt in a court of law [1]

However, in such cases the U.S. Government is authorized to take reasonable actions to identify such communication or data as being subject to a privilege or confidentiality, and such actions do not negate any applicable privilege or confidentiality.

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was made applicable to the states in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); the sixth Amendment right to appointed was made applicable to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); and the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment was made applicable to the states in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). The exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct. Generally it does not apply to evidence obtained by private citizens because it would usually have not deterrent effect. Most private citizens are unfamiliar with constitutional rules such s those governing search and seizure, have no reason to learn them, and would not be disciplined for violating them.

There has always been the thought that police can abuse their power especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have ben illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule.

Although the exclusionary rule most often is applied to violations of the Fourth Amendment, it has been applied to other constitutional violations as well.13

The proposition that the exclusionary rule should be abolished is preposterous. There are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. Unfortunately, there are many who believe, for a number of reasons, that the exclusionary rule does more harm than good, and that American society suffers needlessly for the sake of protecting the rights of those who violate its laws. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police

The reason we have rules in life are simple, to keep order when there is chaos and to guide our behavior in a way that is acceptable by society’s standards. The reason we have laws and procedures to carry out those laws are simple as well, to keep the government from infringing on its citizen’s constitutional rights. If the government was to rid itself of the exclusionary rule, then it has the potential to be infringing on its citizens rights. The government could essentially walk into anyone who is suspected of a crime’s house and seize whatever they feel is evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important constitutional right within U.S. legal system, but just as it is with most of the legal systems the exclusionary rule is not without

To determine whether or not the admission of evidence is constitutionally permissible can be a very tough decision. There are many laws and regulations that must be adhered to in order for evidence to be admissible to ensure that a defendant’s right are not violated. One of the most important rules that help protect against illegal evidence being admitted into evidence is the Exclusionary rule. This rule helps to ensure that evidence which is admissible into criminal prosecutions are not only relevant and reliable, but have not violated the fourth or fifth amendment due to misconduct. Specifically, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence obtained by violating a defendant’s constitutional rights to be introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving direct guilt Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 218-219).Police misconduct often leads to evidence that can either be obtained legally through the use of illegal evidence, evidence that is illegally obtained through violations of other rules, regulations, a defendants rights, or evidence that is obtained illegally but falls under one of the exclusionary rule exceptions such as the plain view doctrine (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 219-221).

The exclusionary rule is supported by three amendments, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, and the sixth amendment. "The exclusionary rule is justified by the Fourth Amendment and it is proposed to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures." The court case that helped establish the exclusionary rule was Mapp v. Ohio, the case formed that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence that is obtained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Miranda v. Arizona court case helped establish that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory reports collected in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence earnt in circumstances where the government violated the defendant's

The exclusionary rule covers many different exceptions to what deemed admissible to court with the violation of the Fourth Amendment. The two rules that can be adjusted in the

The Fourth Amendment shields people from outlandish inquiries and seizures including captures. Under most conditions, it requires that a judge issue a court order approving law officers to hunt down and seize confirmation of criminal movement, yet the warrant can be issued just when there is reasonable justification. In 1914, the Preeminent Court embraced the exclusionary principle, which banned proof seized unlawfully from being utilized as a part of a criminal trial; in 1961, the standard was made pertinent to the states. Resulting Incomparable Court choices have contracted the use of the exclusionary principle.

There is a public and governmental cost that is imposed by the exclusionary rule on the public when it frees the guilty and sidetracks the court on its mandate to obtain the truth. The fabric of the law is also tainted. There are professional costs also incurred by individuals within the system of criminal justice. The rigidity of the law causes the concerned parties like the police, magistrates and lawyers to allow double standards in order to proceed with a case. In an effort to conclude a case, they ignore certain violations of this draconian rule so as to allow the use of evidence. When the exclusionary rule is upheld, there administrative costs imposed on the government