Exclusionary Rule Pros And Cons

The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose

While some states followed the Supreme Court in adopting this rule, others stood by the common law rule which allows all evidence to be admissible in court no matter how the evidence was obtained.

Throughout the years many arguments have stemmed from the effectiveness of the exclusionary rule. Those in favor of the exclusionary rule believe that it protects people against unnecessary search and seizure, establishes innocence before guilt, and stops admissibility of false evidence. The exclusionary rule requires all law enforcement officers to provide a warrant in the case of search and seizure to protect people’s right to privacy. The only exception to this rule is if the law enforcement officer has probable cause. The rule also states that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty and any evidence used against the suspect in