Exclusionary Rule Essay

There has also been an increasing recognition in case law, even among strong proponents of the traditional principle of objectivity, that the rigid nature of the exclusionary rule can restrict fair adjudication. A notable example is found in the Australian case of Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v. State Rail Authority of N.S.W., where Mason J, known to be a strong proponent of the orthodox objective approach was inclined to acknowledge that “there may perhaps be one situation in which evidence of the

Over the years, rules have been established by Supreme Court Cases in the interest of the defendants, for the protection of their Constitutional Rights and to make sure they have received a fair trial. These rules are created on a case by case situation in which certain situations arise and problems surface with the judicial system and the way that it is acting. One could not predict every problem that will arise in the court room, but all that can be done is to address the situations as they come

the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who

of excluding pre-contractual negotiations from admissible evidence as part of the exclusionary rule in the interpretation of contracts. I will begin first by giving a brief overview of the exclusionary rule, focusing specifically on its background and its application to pre-contractual negotiations. Then I will then detail and critically evaluate the arguments made in favour of its inclusion in the exclusionary rule as well as the arguments made opposing it. I will conclude by arguing that despite

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

drugs, refusing until they eventually did. The second element would be that the crime was committed due to the encouragement of the government [1]. 6. Is there a constitutional right to the exclusionary rule and the defense of entrapment? Explain your answer. The Constitution does not mention the exclusionary rule or the defense of entrapment, as there was not a need to include them at the time. These legal guidelines were created as devices to protect Constitutional rights: particularly the Fourth

protected by the First Amendment and if evidence obtained in the search which violates the Fourth Amendment should be admitted in court as evidence. The verdict of Mapp vs Ohio was six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp. After this, the exclusionary rule was put in place, the rules establish that all evidence obtained must be legally

Mapp vs. Ohio State(1961) Background: In the Mapp vs Ohio state court case, the issue disputed was when the appellant Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing “obscene” materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. During the year of 1961, Ohio police were looking for a criminal accused of a bombing and had been told that he was hiding in Dollree Mapp 's house. Police acted quickly and came to her house but when she didn 't answer the door, police officers forced themselves

property. Her rights have been violated and because of the unreasonable searches and seizures which violates the exclusionary rule. By going through with the charges you the government have showed that humans have been lied to and we don’t have rights in the end. Rules were made to keep justice and not to break. If she is being given a punishment it will not only go against the exclusionary act but also show the state as

Earl Warren served as Chief Justice in the the Supreme Court replacing Fred M. Vinson as Chief Justice after his death in 1953. In the period from 1961 to 1969, Warren Court presided over the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 4th and 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This is known as the “nationalization” of the Bill of Rights. In these years, cases pertaining to the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches, and the treatment