Exclusionary Rule Exception

The unresolved questions that attend the exclusionary rule can serve as catalysts of law that could foster harmonious relations among federal and state governments in their common responsibility of balancing individual freedom against governmental regulation and restraint.” In addition, in her Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article, Expanding Exclusionary Rule Exceptions and Contracting Fourth Amendment Protection, Professor Heather A. Jackson states, “In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution mandated the exclusionary rule as a remedy of a Fourth Amendment violation in state proceedings. The Mapp Court examined the foundation of the precedent of Wolf, which came to the opposite conclusion, and ultimately

In the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), Detective McFadden, with 39 years of experience as a police officer, observed Terry and two other continuously staring into a store window. McFadden feared the three men were going to commit a robbery so he stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. The Supreme Court presented the question was the stop and frisk of Terry and the other two men a violation of the Fourth Amendment? In their decision, the Supreme Court stated there was no violation since the detective had reasonable suspicion that a crime would be committed. In addition, his safety was at risk so he had the right to conduct a frisk. In his St. Johns Law Review, Terry v. Ohio: A Practically Perfect Doctrine, Wallace and Beverley Woodbury University Professor of Law, Stephen A. Saltzburg states Part 1 of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion, “On the one hand, it is frequently argued that in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a “frisk" and a "search." Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to “frisk” him for weapons.” Based on Chief Justice Warren’s opinion, the Supreme Court took to account that the safety of officers is in question when dealing with armed suspects, and therefore they should have the right to conduct a frisk for