The Exclusionary Rule And The 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.

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 Fourth Amendment states; ” the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

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

The court should find that the evidence found against the defendant, Mr. Arnold J. Stewart, should not have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The moment Stewart left his suitcase in the care of Mr. Holt, he gave him possession over it. In the case of United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1990), the court determined that the one who has the right to possession of personal property has the right to exclude others from searching it. In this situation because of Larry Holt’s growing concerns with the suitcase beginning left with him for longer than intended and the concerns of whether the suitcase contained a bomb, he did not exclude

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There were many other examples of the declining of the federal exclusionary rule before the Mapp v. Ohio case. For example, Wolf v. Colorado, when the Fourth Amendment came in contact with the Fourteeneeth Amendment because the Supreme Court decided not to pass the federal exclusionary rule. Justice Frankfurter relied on the ruling of the People v. Defore case by Judge Cardozo(Black).

The fourth amendment is known for its ambiguity, however when taking a deeper look it is also where the exclusionary rule is derived from. The fourth amendment provides freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, meaning any evidence obtained violating the exclusionary rule is inadmissible in court. Unless, it is a good faith mistake. The evolution of the exclusionary rule is important and vital in providing protection to the people. Protection from the federal government and state officials will be applied through case law. Additionally, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizure will narrow its scope in where it can be applied. Specifically, exclusionary rule is limited to criminal court during the trial fase. When

The Fourth Amendment is a persons right to privacy and protects them from an unlawful search and seizure. When an officer conducts an unlawful search and illegally collects evidence, the officer might try to present the evidence in the suspects trial.As a result of unreasonable search and seizure, the exclusionary rule was created. The exclusionary rule states that any criminal evidence collected by law enforcement officials in violation of a persons fourth amendments rights is inadmissible in court (Schmalleger, 128). However, the exclusionary rule was established to ensure that police officers abide by the rules and obtain warrants that permit them to effectively conduct a search and arrests, especially if the arrest made may lead to the

The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to not allow the use of improperly obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule discourages the government form violating an individual's constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule arose because it is a judge created case law to avoid police or government malpractice. This doctrine at a criminal trial forbids the introduction of evidence that violates individuals fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment. If an officer violates an individuals rights and does not follow through with the exclusionary rule they may be sued or prosecuted criminally. In criminal cases, the exclusionary rule is the most popular to address constitutional infractions by the government.

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

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things seized.”

In 1960, the Rule had reached the states. In Elkins v. United States6, states officials that obtain evidence illegally were allowed to turn over evidence to federal officials and the evidence could be entered for trial. In Herring v. United States, 2009 7, was a matter of a clerical mistake where the accused was arrested prior to the clerical mistake was updated. It was found that the exception to the Exclusionary Rule did not apply because this was not a case of deliberate misconduct. The officer acted in good faith, the conduct was not deliberate, reckless, or negligent. The arrest was based on basic police mistake that were not a repeated pattern of misconduct. The rule could not be used to suppress evidence. These were known as the Silver Aerial surveillance is also an exception of the Exclusionary Rule. This exception, which was derived from two 1986 cases, California v. Ciraola and Chemical Company v. United States, states that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Areas of the private home or business are not protected from investigation even if the areas are out of public view. The foreign soil exception states that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure