Exclusionary Rule Case Summary

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

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]

There has been an argument among legal experts that the provisions of the exclusionary rule are merely to deter the misconduct of the law enforcement personnel. In light of this, most courts do not adhere to the provisions of the exclusionary rule as it is viewed as an extension of the Fourth Amendment. Ideally, Police officers deem the law as an obstacle on their endeavors to

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

• 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).

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The court concluded that the seized of his belongs indeed violated his constitutional rights. The decision made it clear that any evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure would not be allowed in court. (The Oyez Project, 2014)

Legal Reasoning: The ultimatum of the Fourth Amendment is whether the search was reasonable. The Supreme Court upheld that a warrant is generally required to search a home. Warrantless searches are not reasonable when two co-tenants are present and one of the tenants objects. However, the court held that a same search is reasonable when the opposing tenant is not present. Since the opposing tenant; Fernandez, was arrested and not present, the court affirmed that the search was reasonable

The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and

test, the exclusionary rule, and pertaining to Berger vs. New York, this case examined whether or not evidence obtained by eavesdropping could be used in court. So back to one of my previous thoughts that even if the founder fathers could not view the challenges that the future would bring their amendments, we as a people, through a number of different circumstances, have come up with new parts to apply to the amendments that keep them pertinent in our modern society. Also aside from the exclusionary rule which helps the citizens if evidence is illegally obtained that it cannot be used against them in court, but in the mid 1980s the good faith exception was first instituted. This was created to help the police force or any force in use of a warrant but held an error outside of their control. In short, this helped if the warrant held a mistake but it was not the policemen’s fault so even if evidence was obtained it can still be used in court even with a flawed warrant.

The Mapp Court viewed other remedies, such as criminal sanctions, as being ineffective in ensuring compliance with the Fourth Amendment.8 Although the Mapp Court stated that the exclusionary rule was an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have abandoned that position. For example, in United States v. Leon 9 the Supreme Court stated that "[t]he Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, and an examination of its commands and purposes makes clear that using fruits of a past unlawful search or seizure 'works no new Fourth Amendment wrong'"10 In United States v. Calandra,11 the Supreme Court stated:

The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to not allow the use of improperly obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule discourages the government form violating an individual's constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule arose because it is a judge created case law to avoid police or government malpractice. This doctrine at a criminal trial forbids the introduction of evidence that violates individuals fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment. If an officer violates an individuals rights and does not follow through with the exclusionary rule they may be sued or prosecuted criminally. In criminal cases, the exclusionary rule is the most popular to address constitutional infractions by the government.

There is one major exception to the exclusionary rule and that is the Good-faith doctrine. This doctrine says that if an officer had reasonable good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as relying on a search warrant that is later to be found legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible under this rule. (Cornell Law School, 1992). I do believe that the Exclusionary rule is required under the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment states that a person has the right to be secure in their person's, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath of Affirmation and particularly describing

Even though, the exclusionary rule was established to miss illegally seized evidence in court there are several exceptions that allow illegally seized evidence to be presented in trial. The exceptions include the good-faith exception, the plain-view doctrine, clerical error exception, emergency searches of property/emergency entry, impeachment, independent source, the inevitable discovery, the harmless error exception, and the rule of attenuation. A good faith exception is when an officer acts in good faith and believes that the evidence discovered complies with the persons fourth amendment rights. There are three court cases that helped mold and established the good faith exception. In the first court case is U.S. v. Leon, an informant had