History Of The Exclusionary Rule

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

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).)

Many constitutions all over the world provide basis for innocence until proven guilty. As such, the courts of law must always factor in the provisions of criminal procedure and natural justice when cross-examining offenders. In light of this, the exclusionary rule allows a defendant to argue his case if his privacy rights were violated before arraigned in court. In essence, the provisions of the exclusionary rule prevent the government authorities and machinery such as FBI and CIA from gathering evidence from an individual in a manner that disrespects the United States constitution. Therefore, the exclusionary law protects an individual against unreasonable search or seizure in line with the provisions of the Fourth

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

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

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.

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

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

“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

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))

case of Mapp v. Ohio. Exclusionary rule is that any evidence that is illegally seized

This paper examines the exclusionary rule. Explains the reasons for the origin of the exclusionary rule. The paper contends that use of the exclusionary rule has enabled guilty criminals to go free and that its original intention has been so distorted that it no longer fulfills its intended function and is instead a tool for protecting the rights of criminals Not only how it came about but, the true meaning as well as the exceptions. There are also a number of cases mentioned throughout the paper that have played some role in the exclusionary.

Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark 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," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in

First, supporters for the continued use of the exclusionary rule maintain that its ability to protect a citizen from unreasonable search and seizures should not be neglected. By protecting individuals from unreasonable search and seizures, this law serves to uphold a citizen’s privacy and basic constitutional rights. For example, if a law enforcement officer enters a house to search for a suspect without a warrant, any evidence obtained through that search which does not have to do with that particular crime/suspect may not be used in court. Additionally, they claim that this rule serves as a deterrent against police misconduct. Since this rule doesn’t allow for illegally obtained evidence to be used in court, they believe that law enforcement officials will be discouraged from conducting unreasonable search and seizures because the evidence obtained from these searches would not be able to be used in court. Without the exclusionary rule, law enforcement officials, as well as anyone else, could easily manufacture false evidence or use illegally obtained evidence to be submitted in court. This kind of corruptive police behavior could potentially result in innocent victims being locked away. While others claim, that by not excluding this illegally obtained evidence, the court is participating in illegal activity which may result in the integrity of our justice system to be compromised.