The Way Exclusion Clauses Are Treated

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 exclusionary rule is a highly contentious issue in the American judicial system. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the exclusionary rule, the exclusionary rule is the rule that states that illegally obtained evidence may not be used in a trial, even if it may have led to a defendant's conviction.

Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following:

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]

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 reason we have rules in life are simple, to keep order when there is chaos and to guide our behavior in a way that is acceptable by society’s standards. The reason we have laws and procedures to carry out those laws are simple as well, to keep the government from infringing on its citizen’s constitutional rights. If the government was to rid itself of the exclusionary rule, then it has the potential to be infringing on its citizens rights. The government could essentially walk into anyone who is suspected of a crime’s house and seize whatever they feel is evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important constitutional right within U.S. legal system, but just as it is with most of the legal systems the exclusionary rule is not without

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).

In criminal justice the exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence or evidence that violates the offenders rights under the fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment. There are three exceptions under the exclusionary rule, “fruit of the poisoned tree”, inevitable discovery exception, and the good faith exception. These three exceptions each allow evidence that can be considered illegally obtained to be admissible in a court of law, given it fits in certain constraints. “Fruit of the poisoned tree” is a term for any verbal or physical evidence obtained by using illegally obtained evidence.

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.

In 1763, William Pitt spoke in front of Parliament. In that speech he stated that the King of England cannot enter with all his forces. It can be said that the American colonists went to war, the Revolutionary War, with England to stand up for their rights. One of those rights was the protection from illegal searches and seizures. When the Congress debated on the wording of the Fourth Amendment, they had an extreme importance of needed protection from government encroachment. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed and written specifically to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures:

The Exclusionary Rule has been around since the early 1900s, and it is a rule that some defendants who are involved in a felonious case tend to use as a remedy for unlawful searches that has a habit of violating their Fourth Amendment rights. This rule also dictates that any evidence that was unlawfully obtained should be ruled out as evidence under our Fourth Amendment, and the Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 is one of these cases that discusses this rule and evidences being excluded. Now, before this rule was created, “any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant, and how the evidence was seized was not considered an important issue” (“Exclusionary Rule”, n.d., para. 4).

A real world use for Dripps’ hybrid option would see both a monetary sanction against law enforcement while not letting the guilty go free. The biggest issue with a real world use of it would be that judges would be reluctant to allow tainted evidence to enter the court room. While Dripps provides an option that is compatible with the restorative justice perspective, it does not provide enough deterrence factor to truly stop law enforcement from infringing on 4th Amendment rights. “This policy of exclusion is based more on the perceived greater need to protect U.S. citizens from governmental abuses than to convict every criminal” (Wagner, 2016). Therefore, the Contingent Exclusionary Rule should be viewed as a stepping block to try and establish

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

Your introduced good and insightful information pertaining to the assignment. Police officers are responsible for maintaining order and limiting crime within their communities. They are the first line of the defense regarding suspects committing criminal activities. Another reason for police officers are to carry out the goals of the agency mission. In my opinion, you gave good details to the exclusionary rule and also provided a clear example to understand how the rule apply in law. On the other hand, under this rule, criminals can be released but, it's the responsibly of the police officer to make clear decisions and judgments calls pertaining to evidence that could apply to the exclusionary rule.

In today’s English law, freedom of contract is one the foundation of contract law. The existence of freedom of contract requires three main considerations: the freedom to