ipl-logo

Pros And Cons Of Exclusionary Rule

966 Words4 Pages

The Exclusionary rule in the United States constitutional law simply states that any evidence taken from people with forced, shall not be allowed in court. Any evidence taken in an illegal search and seizure may not be used in court. The United State Supreme Court in conjunction with maintain the sole of the Constitution uses a combination of the fourth, fifth, sixth and even the fourteenth amendment to keep true the heart of “good faith" and the “fruit of the poisonous tree" or the exclusionary rule (Teacher, 2013). It will be prudent to understand these amendments, to how apply them. The Fourth Amendment main intentional creation to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment is to protect from self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule applies to all who live within the United States of America. While the rule cover many areas it is not without its faults. Many people are not in favor of the exclusionary rule, perhaps because it often allows for the freedom of those criminal prosecuted. (INPUT BOOKS DEFEITION OF EXCUSIONARY RULE HERE). …show more content…

When the opposite occurs the burdens falls on the police department. For instances; in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914, Chief Justice Edward D. held court in that the evidence illegally obtained by police in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Weeks. He ruled that it would not be admissible in federal courts eventually, in 1961, this rule was extended to state courts. The central drive for the exclusionary ruling is to discourage police misconduct then, now and for the future law enforcement. In another case, Rochin v. California (1952)—Exclusionary rule applied to all cases involving extreme police misconduct
The case ended in the Supreme Court with the case being reversed. The court’s concern was due process of the

Show More
Related

  • Summary Of Santobello V. New York, 404 US

    431 Words  | 2 Pages

    Case Brief Case title: Santobello V. New York, 404 U.S 257 (1971) Facts: Santobello was indicted with two felonies and plead guilty to a lesser offense after negotiating with the prosecutor. The offense that he did plead guilty had a maximum sentence to only a year in jail, which was less than the original two felonies, and the prosecutor at the time said he wouldn’t recommend anything to the judge. However, a different prosecutor took over the case and did end up recommending the maximum sentence. The defendant’s, Santobello’s, attorney objected and told the judge of the deal that the former prosecutor made a deal to not recommend sentencing, but the judge said that no one influenced him and that the he believed the maximum one year sentence was appropriate based on Santobello’s criminal record.

    Read More

  • Police Violate The Fourth Amendment

    234 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

    Read More

  • The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief

    510 Words  | 3 Pages

    Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule In The Weeks V. United States Case

    475 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Scalia's Principal Argument For Violating The Exclusionary Rule

    450 Words  | 2 Pages

    I do agree with Justice Scalia’s principal argument for not using the exclusionary rule to the knock-and announce violations. I think in some cases that knocking on the suspect door can give them time to prepare themselves and maybe hide evidence. Yes, the rule is set to reduce property damage, but in some cases, officers can get shot if the people inside the house are aware that they are committing crime. For instance, if a person is a drug dealer, he sure knows that its illegal. So, having the officer knocking on his door, he probably won’t open or will open with a gun point out.

    Read More

  • No Probable Cause To Arrest Hayes Essay

    551 Words  | 3 Pages

    This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

    Read More

  • Wrongfulness Probation Case Study

    184 Words  | 1 Pages

    The original rationale of the rule of the exclusion of the wrongfulness probation has a clear constitutional scope, involves an enhanced warranty for individual rights and seeks to prevent access to process all those evidence to be obtained by the police authorities violated constitutional rights of the people. (Oaks, D. (1970)) One way it has been used in a case was during Boyd V. United States where several cases of plate glass were confiscated from the defendants by federal customs agents due to suspicion that certain documents had been falsified for the purposes of avoiding customs fees or duties. During the course of the proceedings, the defendants were ordered by the judge to produce documents showing the quantity and value of the shipments.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

    676 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule

    616 Words  | 3 Pages

    Fourth Amendment Is the exclusionary rule a benefit to us as a country or is it a hindrance to stopping criminals? When this country was in its infancy and we were part of another kingdom. We were being oppressed and harassed unnecessarily by the government. The present government at the time, which was the King of England was in the habit of searching people 's houses and persons, confiscating papers and effects without due process because they were attempting to stifle dissent (Gutzman, 2007).

    Read More

  • Why Is The Exclusionary Rule Important

    428 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule

    1231 Words  | 5 Pages

    The rules main goal is to prohibit evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admissible in court (Siegel 2010). The exclusionary rule may prevent evidence seized in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admitted into court, an officer who has violated someone's rights could also be sued along with their agency. According to Section 1983 of the U.S. Code an officer could be prosecuted criminally under some circumstances as well (Forsythe n.d.). The case United States v. Leon is notable because due to this case the good faith exception was added to the exclusionary rule. The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010).

    Read More

  • Jailhouse Informant Case

    2083 Words  | 9 Pages

    As Colson and Massiah sat in Colson’s car they began to discuss matters of the case, to which Massiah made several incriminating statements, that Colson later testified in Massiah’s trial to. Unfortunately for Massiah, those statements were allowed to be used against him in his trial, despite his attorney’s objections. The case was then taken to the Court of Appeals to which they affirmed the conviction and the use of incriminating evidence. However, when the case reached the United States Supreme Court found that the nature in which the evidence was obtained was indeed in violation of Massiah’s rights. The United States Supreme Court therefore reversed the conviction on the basis that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights had been

    Read More

  • Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

    1872 Words  | 8 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against The Exclusionary Rule

    493 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Ethics Case Of Darling V. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital

    503 Words  | 3 Pages

    At the end of this case, the court had this to

    Read More

More about Pros And Cons Of Exclusionary Rule

Open Document