The Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule, states that if any evidence is illegally obtain for any case cannot be used in court. The case of “Weeks VS United States” is one example of how the exclusionary rule works. (Explain the case) I personally think rule goes well in hand with the fourth amendment. But with the exclusionary rule some would say that it cancels out the Patriot act. According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, 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 exclusionary rule is not a constitutional right. Rather, it is more often considered a court-created remedy to policing methods as well as a deterrent against unlawful search and seizure, which is covered in the fourth-amendment. The exclusionary rule does not allow the government to use evidence gained that violates the constitution of the United States. In addition, any evidence gained through this method will be considered according to the same rule, meaning that it will not be allowed. (CITE THOMAS CLANCY)

Good faith Exception an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that when United States v. Leon (1984) set up the good faith exception. The Court held the good faith exception applies and the exclusionary principle does not matter when cops abuse the Fourth Amendment while sensibly depending on a non-police work force determination that their activities consent to the Fourth Amendment. Yet, the Leon choice was met with restriction. Equity Brennan voiced worry about this "more noteworthy danger to our common freedoms.” Taking a moderate pace, exacting way to deal with the Amendment's significance and understanding. Equity Brennan focused on the undeniable requirement for reconciliation of police power and legal securities. He focused on the assurance couldn't only begin in the court. On account of the shortcomings in the Court's contention discovering the expenses of the exclusionary principle to exceed the advantages, the legal thinking for the good faith exception special case is not safe. The good faith exception has extended throughout the years with subtleties gave by new cases, such as: Arizona v. Evans (1984), Illinois v. Krull (1987), and Davis v. United States. In the Davis case, the Court augmented the exception and made the exclusionary guideline inapplicable when police unbiased and sensibly depending on trying to redraft a point of reference. By setting up another special case, the Court made another inquiry for Fourth Amendment law advancement. Laura Collins states, "If and when litigants can challenge unfavorable Fourth Amendment points of reference in criminal cases." Now, criminals have no chance of challenging an unreasonable search below the Supreme Court in the federal court system.