The Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule

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

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

As we have probably read in our previous discussion about the Warrant Court of the 60s and 70s, the “exclusionary rule” has become a highly contentious issue in our country’s judicial system. A quick summary for those unfamiliar with this rule, the exclusionary rule defends individuals from the states obtaining illegal evidence that may be used in trial, even if without a doubt the defendant is guilty.

The court determined a baseline or how they were going to exclude evidence based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Dismissal is only necessary when the benefits outweigh its costs. The exclusionary rule is very vital in determining if the police officer’s conduct was unlawful. By excluding the illegally obtained evidence, courts minimized the temptation of the

The Exclusionary Rule has an interesting history in the United States legal system. It is a principle that is based on federal Constitutional Law that states evidence that is seized illegally by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against that suspect in any form of criminal

Joe, great job in describing the Mapp v. Ohio case where the exclusionary rule came into play. If you have been in law enforcement long enough and have made cases, particularly involving drugs and DUI’s, the chances that one of your cases involving the exclusionary rule are likely. I absolutely believe in the exclusionary rule because it protects a person from illegal searches and seizures. All of the cases that the defense tried to use the exclusionary rule against me was just an attempt to get their client’s charges dismissed because that was their only chance to have their client exonerated. I have witnessed several interdiction stops that led to large money and drug seizures be dismissed because the judge ruled that the stop was illegal.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of objects from a secluded residence establishes a defilement of the Fourth Amendment. Also, it sets forth the exclusionary rule that forbids admission of unlawfully acquired evidence in federal courts.

The exclusionary rule is a legal protector in the United States, under constitutional law, where it states that any evidence collected in violation of an offenders constitutional rights, is inadmissible to serve for prosecution in the court of law. This could be considered an example as a protector set in place by the judiciary in order to protect a person’s constitutional right. An extension of the exclusionary rule is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This doctrine was established in 1920. This doctrine states that any evidence that was gathered or illegally obtained information cannot be used for sentencing in trial. if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence

If I was a legal scholar that means I would be versed and skill in law with earned respect and recognition of my writing concerning legal topics. My thoughts on the exclusionary rule being constitutional right, the “fruit of the poisonous tree” also known as Miranda warnings are alive and well. Citizens have their rights to refuse to speak with police officers if they do not have a valid warrant. Police cannot use unlawfully attained evidence with an invalid warrant. There are good cops and bad cops, and the exclusionary rule is the best rule established to make cops be honest or to penalize them. This rule is an appropriate rule for police misconduct.

QUESTION 6 (6 points): Explain the Exclusionary Rule: How and why was it created? What was its development? When and how does a defendant invoke it? Exclusionary rule is in place to protect anyone that has been the victim unreasonable search and seizure. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence collected or obtain during an unreasonable search and seizure can not be used against a defendant in order to convict said defendant. The exclusionary rule took affect in federal case only in 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States but there was one main clause; if evidence was collected illegally by state and local officer’s and then handed over to federal officer’s can be used. This clause is known as the silver platter doctrine. It wasn’t

In order to rightfully arrest a suspect in a crime or to appropriately try a criminal case in court, evidence must be gathered in order to prove the commission of a crime. There are legal standards which dictate how evidence is gathered and used in order to prove a person is guilty or convict him or her of an actual criminal offense. The Exclusionary Rule was established under constitutional law for basically two essential purposes. One reason was to prevent the unlawful gathering of evidence by law enforcement against a person. Secondly, the rule was also established so a person could not be compelled to incriminate themselves. This rule was initiated in order to protect guaranteed constitutional rights and to ensure that law enforcement did not overstep their authority in the process of collecting evidence. The rule also extends to ensure that a person does not participate in self-incrimination.

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).

Even though, the exclusionary rule was established to miss illegally seized evidence in court there are several exceptions that allow illegally seized evidence to be presented in trial. The exceptions include the good-faith exception, the plain-view doctrine, clerical error exception, emergency searches of property/emergency entry, impeachment, independent source, the inevitable discovery, the harmless error exception, and the rule of attenuation. A good faith exception is when an officer acts in good faith and believes that the evidence discovered complies with the persons fourth amendment rights. There are three court cases that helped mold and established the good faith exception. In the first court case is U.S. v. Leon, an informant had

The school officials must have broad powers to control student conduct which includes the power of search and seizure. T.L.O’s behavior furnished a reasonable basis for the search of her purse therefore the “exclusionary rule” does not apply. Because school officials are employees of the state, they are obligated to respect every student's right including his/her right to privacy.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there had been no “deliberate and conscious violation” of the person’s constitutional rights in this case because the relevant Garda had done all that he thought necessary to obtain the search warrant and he was entirely unaware of its inherent defect. The Court, in reaching their conclusion, relied upon the United States’ authority case of U.S. v Leon. In this case the exclusionary rule was stated to be for the purpose of deterring police misconduct.