Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

The title of Chapter 2 is "Criminal Courts, Pretrial Processes, and the Exclusionary Rule." The chapter begins with a description of the structure of the U.S. court system, which is a dual court system. A dual court system means that there are both federal- and state-level courts who operate within their own jurisdictions. The United States District Court is the trial court for the federal system.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Where there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes, no consent to go to the police station, and no prior judicial authorization for detaining him, the investigative detention at the station for fingerprinting purposes violated Hayes rights under the Fourth Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reasoning: The police without a warrant or probable cause removed a subject from his home and transported him to the police station, where he was not free to go, although he was there briefly for questioning, In addition fingerprinted him.

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

The Exclusionary Rule is an important constitutional principle of modern criminal procedure law in the United States. Generally, it prohibits the summary at criminal trial of any evidence seized or otherwise obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Exclusionary Rule, unsuitably obtained evidence that leads to the subsequent discovery of other incriminating evidence automatically invalidates or "poisons" the newly discovered derivative evidence in the same way that a poisonous tree taints the fruits growing on any of its branches. While it stems from the Fourth Amendment, it is not actually enclosed anywhere within the text of the Constitution or its Amendments. In fact, it was judicially shaped more than a century after the Constitution was approved in 1789 and the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect

The exclusionary rule, as applied today, states that any evidence that was found using an unconstitutional method is also unconstitutional; therefore, inadmissible in court. This is because criminal proceedings are to be fair and impartial (i.e. “reason and truth”). I agree, by allowing the exclusionary rule into proceedings, the rights of the defendants are protected. Although the defendants may be guilty, there has to be a system in which the police should also be held accountable for the way they proceed in practice. The criminal proceeding is adversarial with the ultimate goal for both sides being to let the evidence and circumstances prove the truth; therefore, the way the evidence is gather should be a critical element towards a conviction.

The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.

The exclusionary rule is a lawful principle that the United States use, which expresses that the confirmation that was powerfully utilized by the police can 't be utilized in a criminal trial. The motivation behind why this is done it’s for the security of the established rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule states that in the Fifth Amendment no one "should be denied of life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law." The exclusionary rule additionally expresses that in the Fourth Amendment it is intended to shield residents from unlawful pursuits and seizures. It also applies to the infringement of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the privilege to counsel.

"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". The 4th amendment was made based on the Founding Fathers ' experience with the Kings agents and the all purpose writ of assistances that they used abusively. Without the 4th amendment, we would be at the mercy of the police because they could come into our household, search anything and take whatever they want. "A reasonable expatiation of privacy" the 4th amendment secures the protection of the

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

Is war really a battle fought between two nations or more? The oxford definition of war is a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. In relation to war, racial profiling can be seen as an undeclared war. An undeclared war is a term used for disagreement fought without an official declaration. The undeclared war between male minorities and police forces is a constant issue that is being surpassed in our society.

The Fourth Amendment was formally sanctioned in 1791 as a direct response to the Writs of Assistance. These were search warrants issued by courts to assist the British government in enforcing trade and navigation laws. The warrants authorized officers to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying either the house or the goods. The Fourth Amendment was proposed to stop this and 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.” In laymen terms, this amendment prevented officers to search people’s property without their consent, or the approval of a judge.

The criminal justice system has a set of rules it follows when arresting, interrogating, and placing the accused on trial. These rules are known as procedural rights. Procedural rights are the rights of the accused/defendant, when going through the criminal justice system. They are the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (Bohm, 2018). Also, known as the Bill of Rights.