The Constitution : The Exclusionary Rule

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]

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 Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was made applicable to the states in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964); the sixth Amendment right to appointed was made applicable to the states in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); and the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment was made applicable to the states in Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). The exclusionary rule was designed to deter police misconduct. Generally it does not apply to evidence obtained by private citizens because it would usually have not deterrent effect. Most private citizens are unfamiliar with constitutional rules such s those governing search and seizure, have no reason to learn them, and would not be disciplined for violating them.

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

test, the exclusionary rule, and pertaining to Berger vs. New York, this case examined whether or not evidence obtained by eavesdropping could be used in court. So back to one of my previous thoughts that even if the founder fathers could not view the challenges that the future would bring their amendments, we as a people, through a number of different circumstances, have come up with new parts to apply to the amendments that keep them pertinent in our modern society. Also aside from the exclusionary rule which helps the citizens if evidence is illegally obtained that it cannot be used against them in court, but in the mid 1980s the good faith exception was first instituted. This was created to help the police force or any force in use of a warrant but held an error outside of their control. In short, this helped if the warrant held a mistake but it was not the policemen’s fault so even if evidence was obtained it can still be used in court even with a flawed warrant.

“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 silver platter doctrine was a doctrine that allowed evidence that had been illegally seized by state and local police into federal courts as long as they were not acting as federal law enforcement agents (Gray, Cooper, & McAloon, 2012). Therefore, as long as the individual obtaining the evidence was not acting as an agent of federal law enforcement, then the evidence would be allowed within a court case. The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule did not apply to state officials at this time. It was only enforced on federal government officials who seized evidence illegally. Therefore, this practice went on for some time before it was reevaluated.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful seize and searches; therefore, officers need to have a search warrant to enter a dwelling. In the Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court announced the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained during a search that violates a person’s constitutional rights can be inadmissible in court (Hendrix, 2013, p.162). Dollree Mapp requested a search warrant and the present of a lawyer. She did not give the police the consent to enter her home. However, in the situation concerning the marijuana, plain view doctrine allows officers to seize contraband that is visibly seen on a person’s premises. Plain view is not considered a search; therefore, it is

The exclusionary rule covers many different exceptions to what deemed admissible to court with the violation of the Fourth Amendment. The two rules that can be adjusted in the

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 United States Constitution has a search and seizure requirement provided for in the Fourth Amendment. The constitution seeks to protect the privacy of its citizens from arbitrary and unfounded searches in their private property. The amendment broadens the scope of searches and seizure, where it prevents the government from exploiting the privacy of citizens when they are at their homes, places of work, and even public places. It prevents law enforcement groups from randomly stopping citizens on the streets and searching them without probable cause to do the same (Re, 2014). The exclusionary rule ensures that law enforcers abide by the provision of the fourth amendment. It prevents evidence that is attained from unreasonable searches and seizures from being used against suspects in a court of law. A case that illustrates the same

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.