Exclusionary Rule Essay

because it enforced the rule that police officers are not authorized to use illegally obtained evidence (breaking the fourth amendment) in court, by applying the exclusionary rule. The fourth Amendment says that government authorities can't conduct direct searches or seizures without warrants to support their search. Be that as it may, the amendment does not explain what happens in the event that they may conduct an unlawful search. Mapps case caused the exclusionary rule to come about, which says

Facts of the Case: Three officers suspected Dollree Mapp of harboring a bombing suspect and went to her house. Upon arrival, Mapp refused to let them enter her home without a search warrant. Police produced what seemed to be a search warrant and searched the premises. No bombing suspect was found however, police found obscene literature on the premises. At the time Ohio had a statute that made the possession of obscene literature criminal. Mapp was arrested for possessing obscene pictures, after

Police officers are trained professionals that help keeping the order in our society. To fight crime, is necessary to arrest people that breaks the law. However, to control citizens from breaking the law, is imperative that they arrest those who refuse to abide it. In doing so, is critical that they have knowledge of the science and technology that involves interpreting the law. Nonetheless, a balance between due process and the interpretation of the laws is complicated when we take in consideration

Dollree Mapp was interrupted by the police one day, and wanted to go in the house. Mapp called her lawyer and refused to let them in without a search warrant. They accused her of hiding a bomber, because of an anonymous call they got. About thirteen hours later a whole squad of police cars pulled in front of her house. They knocked on the door and got no response, so they forced the door open and began to search without a warrant. Mapp asked to see the warrant, so they showed her a piece of paper

This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not

thought that police can abuse their power especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have ben illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule. Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent

government for violations of those rights. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Weeks v. United States,2 introduced the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment.3 The Weeks Court felt that the only effective way to enforce the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was to adopt a rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by the government against a defendant at trial. The Weeks Court

that the police can abuse their power, especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have been illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule. Under the Fourth Amendment, the police cannot just force their way into someone’s home without probable cause. Even with probable cause, the police need to have the consent

Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Criminal Procedure/CJA 364 University of Phoenix Exclusionary Rule Evaluation The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information

warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists. However, good faith exception is not an exception when it comes to the Fourth Amendment clause of all seizures to be reasonable. Instead, it is an exception to the rule of when the police violate the Fourth Amendment the following evidence is