Exclusionary Rule Violations

The reason why the exclusionary rule exist was to eliminate evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Basically stating that evidence would be admissible in court if a police officer found it in the crime scene under the correct procedures. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protects people against unreasonable search and seizures by the police force. The exclusionary rule is a court made rule and not in any of the statutes. The legislative bodies did not created it, but rather by the United States Supreme Court. The Exclusionary Rule also affects in federal courts with the advantage of the Fourth Amendment. Police misconduct plays a key role in the exclusionary rule and if there wasn’t misconduct within our police department, the rule would not exist today. It is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant, not the responsibility of the citizen. With the exclusionary rule in effect in all fifty states of the United States, a citizen who is convicted of a crime has the possibility of won’t be convicted because of obtaining evidence without a warrant or police tampering with evidence. Going through the procedures of having probable cause or obtaining warrants to search an individual or place is the government's responsibility. The exclusionary rule is used to give individuals

The exclusionary rule is part of the American Constitution it states that evidence that had been taken by the cops, is not admissible in the court of the American law. This precaution created to protect the Constitution. Contrarily, this rule also states in the 5th amendment that nobody should be deprived of life, liberty or property without the correct process of the law being used. The exclusionary rule also explains, that thus rule is grounded throughout the Constitution and most importantly the fourth ammendment, and was established to help citizens from being illegally searched and seizured. This rule can also be applied to

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]

“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

You’re right! The exclusionary rule is very important especially in ensuring that the police officers abide by the fourth amendment and conduct legal searches and seizures. The problem is sometimes police officers make bad judgments and try to patch it up by performing illegal actions. In addition, unlawful searches and seizures may lead to death. The Chief Justice makes a good point, because gathering evidence to prove the crime should be the prime goal. I also believe that police misconduct is over exaggerated now days, but I can admit that it still occurs today.

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).

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

Mapp complained that her Fourth Amendment rights were being violated because she was convicted based on evidence procured from an illegal warrantless search of her home. When the Ohio Supreme Court rejected her case, she brought it forth to the United States’ Supreme Court. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded Dollree Mapp’s conviction and extended the exclusionary rule to all state criminal prosecutions. “The exclusionary rule dictates that any evidence obtained by police or other government agents through an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is inadmissible in court during a criminal trial” (5). Before Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule was created due to Weeks v. United States, another Supreme Court case in 1914, when it was only obligatory for the federal courts to implement this rule; the state courts were not mandated to obey the exclusionary

The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution was introduced to Congress in 1789 by James Madison, however it was not adopted until 1791, and is an extremely important amendment contained in the Bill of Rights. “In the past forty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly advanced the notion that the Fourth Amendment encompasses the common-law restrictions on searches and seizures,” (Mannheimer, M. Z., 2015, p.1, para.1). The Fourth Amendment requires governmental searches to be conducted only when a search warrant is issued, sanctioned by probable cause and supported by oath of affirmation, however, there are exceptions to this rule that are stated in the “Exclusionary Rule,” which was established in 1914. The “Exclusionary Rule” states that there are certain instances, where a search can be conducted without a warrant, such as probationary searches, plain view searches, exigent circumstance searches, border searches, and consent

Ohio court case impacted the American population because it enforced the rule that police officers are not authorized to use illegally obtained evidence (breaking the fourth amendment) in court, by applying the exclusionary rule. The fourth Amendment says that government authorities can't conduct direct searches or seizures without warrants to support their search. Be that as it may, the amendment does not explain what happens in the event that they may conduct an unlawful search. Mapps case caused the exclusionary rule to come about, which says that the proof found in such searches cannot be used in evidence against a defendant in

The court was divided into the decision on how to apply the exclusionary rule, which is for cases where someone’s fourth amendment right has been violated. The majority opinion was to expand the use of the exclusionary rule with the good faith exception. The dissenting disagreed and opposed the extension of the good faith exception.

But, this type of rule did not last long, and around 1914, the Supreme Court decided that it was time for a change, at this time the Exclusionary Rule was born. But not by accident, but by the “Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 (1914), that involved a federal agent who conducted a warrantless search for evidence of gambling at the home of Fremont Weeks” (“Exclusionary Rule”, n.d., para. 4). Once the evidence was seized in the search, they decided to use it at the trail as well, and he was convicted. But, the case was appealed; and the Court came to the conclusion that Weeks Fourth Amendment banded the use of all evidence that was secured by the agents’ warrantless search of weeks home. So the

According to the United States Constitution, Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” is a right of every citizen (1789). Further strengthening this civil liberty is the Exclusionary Rule, which says any evidence obtained through an illegal search shall be excluded from criminal proceedings according to Hargrave in lesson 7 (2017). However, there is the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule, allowing that when law enforcement had a good faith and reasonable belief that they were acting within their legal authority, the evidence although illegally obtained would be admissible.

An analysis of our criminal justice system reveals one controversial statute facing our legal procedures and investigations: the exclusionary rule is an essential extension of the Fourth Amendment or the statue is an unnecessary law that is taken advantage of by criminals. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officials. The Exclusionary Rule, which mandates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is inadmissible in a criminal trial. This statute has been rigorously supported because many individuals believe that the practice will unavoidably discourage law enforcement misconduct. Opponents of the statute argue, however, that when evidence is declared inadmissible in a court of law, society, as a whole, is suffering severe harm at the hands of our judiciary system. Meaning, criminals that should be taken out of society and locked behind bars are being set free due to inadmissible evidence that could have proven their guilt.

The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution because it was made by the court due to the need that presented itself. The intension was to ensure that the 4th Amendment is kept and not violated. Most people are aware of their right to privacy, and how it protects them from unwarranted searches. Nevertheless, most them do not comprehend how the Exclusionary Rule which ensures this right is guarded. The Exclusionary Rule is intended to refrain the police from misconduct. The 4th amendment right protects every citizen from illegal searches and arrests. When the police violates this 4 amendment right, the evidence they have collected will be avoided in the federal court.