Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

513 Words3 Pages
The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials. However, the Fourth Amendment is not an assurance against all search and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable by the law. According to the Legal Information institute an unreasonable search is any search conducted by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and/or “without probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is present.” () If any evidence is found during an illegal search and seizure then the evidence is
…show more content…
Through the use of financial and administrative sanctions against police officers we can better deter illegal searches and seizures. If an officer makes an illegal search and seizure there can be a set fine that they would have to pay to the courts, the fine can adjust in value to match the severity in misconduct. Officers can face being removed from the case, suspension without pay, or even termination from their job depending on the severity of the violation. These alternatives provide real and motivating consequences to police officers and would act as a better deterrent than the exclusionary
Open Document