Supreme Court Exclusion Analysis

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

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 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]

Individual states do not need to follow all interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of criminal procedure. The states must only abide by what the Supreme Court sets as minimum thresholds for constitutional guarantees. The states are not precluded from developing workable rules governing arrest, searches and seizures to meet “the practical demands of effective criminal investigation and law enforcement.”

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 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.

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

2. The rights of the accused is based upon the “Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment that creates the Due Process of Law” (Ginsberg et al. 133). These laws protect accused criminals by “engaging limitations on the governments against the liberty and freedom of the accused”. However under the “search and seize it prohibits evidence from being submitted in court that was seized during an illegal search” (Ginsberg et al. 134). The exclusionary was applied during the case of Mapp v. Ohio. The technicalities of this rule has allowed

The proposition that the exclusionary rule should be abolished is preposterous. There are few rules that are as useful in protecting the rights of the general public. Unfortunately, there are many who believe, for a number of reasons, that the exclusionary rule does more harm than good, and that American society suffers needlessly for the sake of protecting the rights of those who violate its laws. Opponents of the exclusionary rule perceive its gains to be dubious; its costs overwhelming. This perception is a flawed overestimation of the results of the rule’s principles. The principle in this case is that the exclusionary rule serves to protect the rights of the accused, and is specifically designed to create an incentive for police

“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).

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.

American courts use the exclusionary rule to deter police officers and other government agents from abusing constitutional rights. According to the rule, courts will suppress evidence that the government obtains through unconstitutional conduct—often an unlawful search or seizure (Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice). Suppression means that the evidence in question will be inadmissible for most purposes in the defendant’s eventual trial. If a judge suppresses crucial evidence, the prosecution may have no other choice than to dismiss charges. That is how I interpret the Exclusionary Rule.

In reality, the exclusionary rule was created so that law enforcement agencies would update the search and seizure procedures to insure that a citizens rights are not being violated. By stating that the rule should no longer exist, then how would one handle matters when someone’s rights are being violated? When going back to the arrest rate statistics, we know that only small number of cases can claim the rule, even less succeeded at suppressing the evidence, with the evidence being dropped due to law enforcements deliberate negligence, not due to some “minor error” as claimed (Bradley,2012).

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.