Exclusionary Rule Of The United Kingdom

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

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 Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded

In order for the rights listed in the Constitution to have substance, there must be enforceable remedies imposed on the government for violations of those rights. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Weeks v. United States,2 introduced the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment.3 The Weeks Court felt that the only effective way to enforce the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was to adopt a rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by the government against a defendant at trial. The Weeks Court further stated that a court should not sanction illegal government conduct by admitting into evidence the fruits of

The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information via judicially sanctioned search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule exempts some evidence even when the seizure or location of the evidence may violate the Fourth Amendment. The rule also provides some benefits and

The Fourth Amendment provides protection against illegal policing by, barring searches that are “unreasonable” and without the justification of “probable cause.” In relativity, once individuals’ rights have been violated and the evidence is obtained illegally, and trialed at court, The Exclusionary Rule can be applied to assist a Defendant in a criminal case as a remedy for illegal searches that violate the rights set forth in the Fourth Amendment. When applicable, the rule dictates that the evidence illegally obtained must be excluded as evidence under the Fourth Amendment. One important corollary to the Exclusionary Rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that, in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being in admissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded (Wong,1963).

This was unconstitutional according to the 4th Amendment and that this instance violated individual rights. Judges developed the Exclusionary Rule and hoped it would discourage officers from breaking the law.

The most controversial aspect of the fourth amendment is the debate over what constitutes as a legitimate search. Since the amendment’s addition to the constitution on December 15, 1791, citizens have questioned police action. The case of United States vs. Jacobsen states that “A seizure of property occurs when the government meaningfully interferes with a person’s possessory interest.”

A court first applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in 1914, in Weeks v. United States. In that case, the court determined that because federal officials had violated the Fourth Amendment in their search of the defendant’s domicile and their seizure of his document, the document should have been returned to the defendant and not held for introduction at his criminal trial. The Court deemed the use of the unlawfully seized evidence at trial to be a disadvantageous error, and it reversed a lower court’s decision to confirm the defendant’s conviction by benefiting him. The Court had an opportunity to rethink the exclusionary rule in 1949. In 1949, the judicial system held that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures does expand to state government officials, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, contrary to the holding of Weeks. Nonetheless, the Court rejected to

The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights, and was introduced to Congress by James Madison in 1789. The role of the Fourth Amendment is to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure and a warrant is to be required that is supported by probable cause. Even though the Amendment was introduced in 1789, it wasn’t adopted as an official amendment until 1792, because in December of 1791 three quarters of the states had ratified the amendment. The fourth amendment had a case law that dealt specifically with three different questions: “what government activities constitute “search” and “seizure”; what constitutes probable cause for the actions that was taken; and how violations of the Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed”. (Brady)

The courts would further recognize exceptions to warrant requirements which also granted legal authority to search and seize without a warrant. The following paper discusses the importance of the fourth amendment in regard to legal search and seizures by obtaining legal warrants and the impact the amendment has had on court cases.

In 1914, during the Supreme Court case Weeks versus the United States, the exclusionary rule was established (Hendrie 1). The exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment. It states that evidence found at a crime scene is not admissible if it was not found under the correct procedures. This means that the government cannot conduct illegal searches of a person or place and use evidence that is found at that time. The government must go through the procedures of obtaining warrants or have probable cause to search an individual or place. The exclusionary rule is used to provide civil rights for individuals and restricts powers of the local and federal government (Lynch 1).

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

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.

The book provides the definition of the exclusionary rule, which is “The legal principle that government is prohibited from using in trials evidence that was obtained by unconstitutional means (for example, illegal search and seizure).” It is said that the rule was formulated on a limited basis in a 1914 Supreme Court decision. The exclusionary rule was expanded to the point where almost any illegally obtained evidence was inadmissible in the 1960s.