Exclusionary Rule

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

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

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

According to Encyclopedia Britannica the exclusionary rule, in American law, states that any evidence seized unlawfully by the police is in violation of the Fourth Amendment (The Editors of The Encyclopedia Britannica). The exclusionary rule was created to exclude any evidence obtained during an illegal search to be used in federal and state courts. The principal behind it is to protect the constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment that may be threatened by police misconduct. Also to secure

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim....Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures: 'The rule is calculated to prevent, not to repair.'...In sum, the rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.12

The term Exclusionary Rule is a legal designation utilized within the criminal justice system put into effect by U.S. Supreme Court precedent that incriminating information or evidence must be taken in accordance with the Constitutional standings of due process. The Exclusionary Rule is specifically

Probable cause is one of most important among the three levels of justification sufficient for a valid Fourth Amendment search because of its foundational nature. The first level of justification considers if law enforcement officials have probable cause to perform a search or seizure. It determines that there is sufficient reason based on known facts that a crime has been committed (Worrall, 2017). In some situations law enforcement must first present this information to a judge, who issues a search warrant, but the majority of searches are warrantless. Therefore, it is vital for law enforcement agencies to make certain that they function within due process and other relevant legal instruments (Worrall, 2017). For instance, in United States v. Pabon (2017), Virginia state law enforcement pulled over a car, in which Pabon was riding with the driver, who committed a traffic violation. There was information that suggested the route in which the driver traveled was used to transport individuals who body packaged drugs and there was also an indication that Pabon may be transporting narcotics (findlaw). When the case was heard, the court ruled the police had probable cause to believe that he was committing a narcotic related offense. Similarly, in the court case of California vs. Acevedo (1991), police observed the respondent leaving an apartment with a brown paper bag in hand, that he placed in his trunk before leaving. It was believed that contents of the brown paper bag were the size of marijuana packages the officers had seen earlier that day. As Acevedo drove away, he was stopped and the trunk

“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). They are saying is that the need for the rule is to deter illegal techniques that police use to obtain evidence, not to simply give more rights to the defendant. As Estreicher and Weick pointed out, “all of the cases since Wolf requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been base on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). So instead of looking at the exclusionary rule as the end-all-right that citizens are

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).

There could be several issues that arise with law enforcement seizing evidence from the passenger. Did law enforcement have a reasonable belief that the suspect had control of a weapon and that the suspect was also dangerous? Was the search of the passenger unconstitutional and did law enforcement invade the passenger’s privacy? Another thing to consider is if the evidence seized was part of the original reason for the officer conducting

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful seize and searches; therefore, officers need to have a search warrant to enter a dwelling. In the Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court announced the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained during a search that violates a person’s constitutional rights can be inadmissible in court (Hendrix, 2013, p.162). Dollree Mapp requested a search warrant and the present of a lawyer. She did not give the police the consent to enter her home. However, in the situation concerning the marijuana, plain view doctrine allows officers to seize contraband that is visibly seen on a person’s premises. Plain view is not considered a search; therefore, it is

Put yourself in the shoes of a drug dealer. Your “associate” is napping in the back seat while you are transporting 54 grams of cocaine. Then suddenly you get pulled over, its soon made clear you were just being warned about a broken tail light. The officer notices the man sleeping in the back and gets suspicious. Following through with his request, you allow the officer the search your car, concluding with him finding your stache of illegal drugs. Regardless of your protection from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the officer can still use the evidence against you.

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.

Evidence found as a result from a confession falls into the realm of the exclusionary rule, which was applied to both federal and state cases in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio respectively. The exclusionary rule concludes that evidence that was obtained as a result of a violation of the constitution is inadmissible in court because the method to obtain the evidence was unconstitutional (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). Regarding the suspect’s confession to the crime during interrogation after Miranda Rights were read, the confession can be used under the exclusionary rule. The confession being scrutinized is that of armed robbery. First, the suspect was arrested and brought into interrogation. The police proceeded to read him the Miranda Rights;

This is an interesting topic matter. I think the exclusionary rule is necessary to some sort of extent. I think citizen's rights need to come in place no matter what the circumstances are. All people should be treated equal even if they are considered "dangerous". Obtaining evidence illegally isn't right and I agree with that. However, there is exceptions to the rule that I don't agree with. The exception to the rule is the "good faith", which is "reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill intent and without intention to defraud. The concept of good faith appears in many areas of law, although it is intangible and determined based on the totality of the circumstances rather than some hard and fast rule". The problem I have with that is