Exclusionary Rule Essay

Final Paper This paper examines the exclusionary rule. Explains the reasons for the origin of the exclusionary rule. The paper contends that use of the exclusionary rule has enabled guilty criminals to go free and that its original intention has been so distorted that it no longer fulfills its intended function and is instead a tool for protecting the rights of criminals Not only how it came about but, the true meaning as well as the exceptions. There are also a number of cases mentioned throughout

Head: Exclusionary Rule Evaluation 1 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper University of Phoenix CJA 364 Abstract The following paper will analyze the rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule and identify exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In this analysis, it will state the costs and benefits of the exclusionary rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. The author

The Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule A Historical Analysis And How It Stand Today April Herald Criminal Justice Abstract From historical analysis, this work highlights key cases that have influenced the evolution of the Exclusionary rule and where it stands today. The purpose of this paper is to inform people of the importance of our constitutional rights, especially the fourth amendment when concerning a criminal prosecution. The exclusionary rule is set in place to ensure justice be

arguing in favor to abolish the exclusionary rule, as opposed to the alternative, which is to continue to believe that the exclusionary rule is part of people’s Constitutional right to protect against illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial that allows criminals to go free. For those who are not familiar with the exclusionary rule, the exclusionary is a very debatable topic in the United States and Supreme Courts. The supposed purpose of the exclusionary rule is under the constitutional law

the exclusionary rule was established (Hendrie 1). The exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment. It states that evidence found at a crime scene is not admissible if it was not found under the correct procedures. This means that the government cannot conduct illegal searches of a person or place and use evidence that is found at that time. The government must go through the procedures of obtaining warrants or have probable cause to search an individual or place. The exclusionary rule

." 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 exclusionary rules was established in 1914, the Weeks v United State and was made applicable

Unit 6 DB 1 Exclusionary Rule 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

The Effects of the Exclusionary Rule In 1787, the Constitution was established in order to set forth and establish the government. Later in 1791 the states called for further Constitutional protections which caused the first 10 amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights to be established. The Bill of Rights dictated the basic rights afforded to all American citizens. Over the years legal professionals have argued and attempted to manipulate the exact meaning of each of the amendments

Evidence found as a result from a confession falls into the realm of the exclusionary rule, which was applied to both federal and state cases in Weeks v. United States and Mapp v. Ohio respectively. The exclusionary rule concludes that evidence that was obtained as a result of a violation of the constitution is inadmissible in court because the method to obtain the evidence was unconstitutional (Hall & Feldmeier, 2016). Regarding the suspect’s confession to the crime during interrogation after Miranda

This is an interesting topic matter. I think the exclusionary rule is necessary to some sort of extent. I think citizen's rights need to come in place no matter what the circumstances are. All people should be treated equal even if they are considered "dangerous". Obtaining evidence illegally isn't right and I agree with that. However, there is exceptions to the rule that I don't agree with. The exception to the rule is the "good faith", which is "reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill intent