Exclusionary Rule: How, When, and Why Was it Established? Essay examples

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

Before the Supreme Court case of Mapp vs. Ohio in 1960, the states were able to interpret the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers the search and seizure of individuals and their property. Interpretation caused the states to disagree on what was justifiable search and seizure according to the constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment, a court issued warrant along with probable cause was required for search and seizures. The states all had different opinions of the definition of what an unreasonable search or seizure was. Therefore, each state’s enforcement was different.

Police came up to her house and asked to check her house if she were to harbor any criminals, she denied their request. Then, they sat in her house and began surveillance for a few hours. They forcibly entered her house without a warrant to corroborate any findings. “Although no suspect was found, officers did discover certain allegedly “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures, the possession of which was prohibited under Ohio state law” (Duignan). Dollree Mapp was convicted of violating the law on the basis of evidence, when she appealed to the Ohio State Supreme Court, the search has sighted the unlawfulness of the search. Ultimately, it was upheld on the precedent “Wolf v Colorado(1949) had established that the states were not required to abide by the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on March 29, 1961”(United States Courts). This explains the issue at hand of how the Fourth Amendment was infringed upon, but also on how state courts compare to federal

The exclusionary rule protects evidence that was found through unconstitutional methods from being used. The Fourth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and it was a focal point to protect their citizens due to the British abusing their powers and trespassing during the 1700s. It is currently a heated topic of discussion in society due to the San Bernardino shooting. The exclusionary rule is involved in that shooting because the FBI is requesting access to iPhones to prevent further shootings however, some argue that the FBI would not be able to use the evidence due to the fact that they would be violating our Fourth Amendment. This scenario ties into the different viewpoints of the controversial topics. Constitutionalist, Tim Lynch, believes strongly in the exclusionary rule and its purpose of deterring officers from breaking the Fourth Amendment while plenty of officers firmly believe that it should be abolished since it has led to guilty criminals that have incriminating evidence walk free based off of how the evidence was acquired. I personally believe that the exclusionary rule is an important part of the judicial system and is a good well-written rule that protects our freedoms from being violated by law enforcement.

We are further protected by the “exclusionary rule,” which throws out any evidence that was collected under violation of the Fourth Amendment. This rule highly discourages authorities from going outside of their means to collect evidence. The downside to this rule is that it tends to let guilty defendants go free if their evidence was found in ways that violated the Fourth

According to (Maclin, 2012), to achieve the credibility of the rights enlisted in the United States Constitution, there should be an enforceable rule imposed on the authorities/government for violations of the listed rights. Following the Weeks Vs U.S, the court deemed it necessary to have a rule that safeguards unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence gathered from unlawful searches and seizures were in violation of the 4th amendment and therefore should not be admitted in a court of law. In its decision, the Week's court went forth to state that a court may not ratify illegal government action through the admission of evidence, regarded as the fruits of the poisonous tree. Initially, the exclusionary rule was inapplicable to states but

There has always been the thought that the 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 been illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule. Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent of the owner or a warrant that says they can search the premises, and that anything they find can be “used against you in a court of law” (Miller, 2016). The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important amendments to the criminal justice system. The Fourth protects citizens from the police obtaining things that could lead citizens to be convicted for something that they police did not have permission to obtain in the first place. The exclusionary rule was put in place by Mapp v. Ohio and Weeks v. United States. In Weeks V. United States, Weeks was convicted of “transporting lottery tickets through the mail” when police illegally search his home without a search warrant (oyez) The police went to his house where they search Weeks’s room and “took possession of various papers and articles found there, which were afterwards turned over to the United States marshal” (Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 1914). They then returned to weeks home to

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the exclusionary rule is “a legal rule that bars unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court proceedings” [1].The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using evidence that was obtained in an illegal or unconstitutional manner. This includes evidence gathered from an unreasonable search or seizure. Any evidence which falls under the exclusionary rule; that leads to the ´finding of further evidence will also be excluded. The initial evidence, and subsequent evidence will not be used in the trial. The exclusionary rule is a remedy, not an individual constitutional right.

." The exclusionary rules evaluation does not allow the use of evidence at trial obtained through methods that violate the constitution. The exclusionary rules is a judicially created remedy, even though the Fourth Amendment requires search and seizure be reasonable, but the Fourth Amendment does not set fourth a remedy if search and seizure do not comply with that reasonableness requirement.

At Miss Mapp’s trial no search warrant was displayed by the prosecution nor was an explanation given (4). The Supreme Court dissented that appellant’s arrest was valid because of the circumstances which existed at the time of apprehension and therefore no warrant was requisite (3). The Supreme Court held that a government official may arrest a person without a warrant as long as probable cause is present and the person is guilty of a felony (3). In addition, the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause in all state prosecutions. Hence, the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the states through the Due Process

Mapp v. Ohio (1961), was a milestone case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures,” which cannot be used in the law on the state level or in criminal prosecutions in state courts, and in addition, federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts (MAPP v. OHIO. They Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.) The Supreme Court successfully completed this by use of selective incorporation. In Mapp the association was within the incorporation of the provisions, of the Fourth Amendment which are appropriate only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is relevant to actions of the states. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961))

In addition, the exclusionary rule sometimes bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of any of a defendant's constitutional rights, not simply in

More than a century since the Fourth Amendment, its value was hardly recognizable by the criminal defendants since evidences seized by law enforcement in violation of warrant and probable cause requirements was justifiable during the defendant prosecution. The penalty for improperly search and seizure that the evidence is obtain will be excluded from the court case, better known as the exclusionary rule. Between the dawn and the intermediate of the 20th century, the exclusionary rule obstruct illegal seized evidence from the federal courts, all of sudden, in 1961 the well-known case that revolves around the exclusionary rule, Mapp v. Ohio, was applied to state courts and as a result, federal supervision under states’ search and seizure guideline

The exclusionary rule is one of the longest-standing doctrines in American criminal and constitutional law. It is a rule designed to limit police and the state’s prosecution in how they can collect and use evidence. In the simplest sense, the exclusionary rule states that evidence collected or analyzed by the state in violation of the constitution cannot then be used in a criminal court proceeding. It is, in essence, excluded from use in an attempt to secure a conviction. While this simple look at the exclusionary rule provides some basis for understanding its concepts, one must look further. As with any aspect of constitutional interpretation, the exclusionary rule has a number of exceptions, and its force has been blunted in many ways by the Supreme Court’s efforts. The exclusionary rule is ultimately an excellent way of providing disincentives to police and investigators, providing them with little reward for choosing to violate the fourth amendment in trying to secure helpful evidence. While it is not a perfect measure, it is the sort of measure that provides a practical disincentive to police and state overreach.

“The United States Supreme Court currently enforces an exclusionary rule in state and federal criminal, proceedings as to four major types of violations: searches and seizures that violate the fourth amendment, confessions obtained in violation of the fifth and ' sixth amendments, identification testimony obtained in violation of these amendments, and evidence obtained by methods so shocking that its use would violate the due process clause”(Oakst, 1970). Many