Theoretical Foundations: A Case Study

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.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “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”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

First, those who support the rule, argue that having such rule deters members of law enforcement from illegal search and seizures of citizens. Police know that if evidence is found to have been collected illegally, and in violation of the defendants 4th amendment right, that evidence will be admissible in court. This could possibly result in the defendant walking free. Secondly, another supporting argument is that the exclusionary rule upholds the Fourth Amendment. This rule protects citizens constitutional right to be protected from illegal search and seizure, and causes law enforcement to operate within the boundaries of the law when making an

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 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.

• 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).

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

One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights 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.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s

“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

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 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.

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 exclusionary rules evaluation does not allow the use of evidence at trial obtained through methods that violate the constitution. The exclusionary rules is a judicially created remedy, even though the Fourth Amendment requires search and seizure be reasonable, but the Fourth Amendment does not set fourth a remedy if search and seizure do not comply with that reasonableness requirement.

The book provides the definition of the exclusionary rule, which is “The legal principle that government is prohibited from using in trials evidence that was obtained by unconstitutional means (for example, illegal search and seizure).” It is said that the rule was formulated on a limited basis in a 1914 Supreme Court decision. The exclusionary rule was expanded to the point where almost any illegally obtained evidence was inadmissible in the 1960s.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to