To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Both life rules and laws aim to maintain order and govern behavior according to societal norms. Laws are essential for protecting citizens' constitutional rights, like preventing unjust searches and seizures by the government in the homes of alleged criminals.
The exclusionary rule in the U.S. legal system is a crucial constitutional right that mandates courts to ban the use of unlawfully obtained evidence, regardless of its incriminating value. This rule guarantees that illegally acquired evidence cannot be admitted in court, even if it is significant for the defendant.
"Bad methods" refers to the techniques and procedures used by investigators during evidence collection.
The investigator may have violated five potential constitutional rights protected by the exclusionary rule. These include the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment's ban on coerced self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment's right to legal counsel. Furthermore, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process in conducting identification procedures.
Various states have adopted their own versions of the exclusionary rule in their state constitutions or laws, some predating the U.S.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Government
5 (893)
“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”
Constitution. The exclusionary rule is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Before the 20th century, individuals could only seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights through private legal actions against authorities. The establishment of the exclusionary rule can be traced back to the 1897 case Bram v. United States, in which the Supreme Court determined that coerced confessions cannot be used as evidence.
The court applied a limited version of the exclusionary rule in this instance, which banned self-incriminating testimony acquired through Fifth Amendment breaches.
In 1914, the US Supreme Court formally introduced the exclusionary rule in Weeks v. United States, referencing the Fourth Amendment's protections against unlawful searches and seizures. The case revolved around Fremont Weeks, an employee at Kansas City Union Station whose home was unlawfully searched by local authorities without a warrant.
During the search, all of Weeks’ personal belongings were taken by the police, including his books, letters, money, papers, notes, evidences of indebtedness, stock certificates, insurance policies, deeds, abstracts of title, bonds, candies clothes and other property as noted in the book (Samaha, 2012 p. 337). Following an analysis of the evidence gathered by both the local police department and the United States Marshal Service. Weeks was apprehended at his workplace and charged with illegal gambling. Despite his attempts to retrieve his seized possessions being denied by a trial court judge.
Weeks was found guilty and given a sentence, however the U. S. Supreme Court overturned the verdict and demanded the return of his confiscated papers, stating that his fourth amendment rights were infringed upon by the government. This decision ultimately resulted in the establishment of the exclusionary rule for federal law enforcement, which was eventually applied to all states following the Mapp v. Ohio case in 1961.
Before the Mapp v. Ohio (1961) ruling, state constitutions did not require the exclusionary rule, as noted by Kamisar (2003, p. 123). He mentions that courts dismissed other options to the exclusionary rule, pointing to failed attempts in California and similar results in other states. Supporters and detractors of the exclusionary rule are split, with each presenting their own justifications for either backing or opposing it.
There are different perspectives on the exclusionary rule. Critics argue that it has deviated from its initial intention of discouraging unlawful actions by law enforcement in favor of protecting Fourth Amendment rights. Estreicher & Weick (2010) suggest that the primary goal of the exclusionary rule is not to address privacy infringements, but rather to deter future illegal conduct by police.
The argument is that the exclusionary rule aims to prevent illegal methods used by police to gather evidence, instead of simply granting more rights to the defendant. Estreicher and Weick have pointed out that decisions mandating the exclusion of illegal evidence are motivated by the necessity to discourage unlawful actions by law enforcement (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). Therefore, the exclusionary rule should not be seen as a guarantee for citizens to have illegally obtained incriminating evidence dismissed in court, but rather as a means to deter illegal tactics employed by police in obtaining such evidence.
Opponents of the exclusionary rule argue that it is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution or in the writings of the framers. They also claim that innocent individuals are not impacted by this rule. Lynch (2000) states that while the exclusionary rule typically benefits individuals who would otherwise be convicted, it does not provide assistance to innocent people who have been unlawfully searched or seized (p. 748).
The high possibility exists that innocent individuals have their cars, homes, and property unlawfully searched on a daily basis without any results being found. These instances are rarely reported and opponents struggle to prove that the actions of the police were intentional. According to Josephson (2009), determining what constitutes "sufficiently deliberate" or "sufficiently culpable" police conduct remains a challenge in the analysis of the exclusionary rule. It is difficult to determine if law enforcement agencies were intentionally seeking out illegal evidence. Despite criticisms, proponents of the exclusionary rule present compelling arguments. In 1983, Justice Potter Stewart countered objections by emphasizing that the focus should be on police conduct rather than the defendant's crime, highlighting the dilemma faced by courts when relevant evidence is excluded due to Fourth Amendment violations.
However, critics often overlook the fact that important evidence would not have been obtained if police officers had followed the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution's restrictions on searches and seizures mean that law-abiding officers will apprehend fewer criminals.
According to Lynch (2000, pp. 748-749), the political outcome is not forced upon citizens by judges, but rather a price that the framers were willing to pay to protect the sanctity of individuals, homes, and property from excessive government power. Supporters highlight that law enforcement must adhere to legal guidelines, such as obtaining warrants before conducting searches and seizures in private residences, vehicles, offices, and other properties.
Law enforcement agencies, not citizens, are responsible for obtaining warrants. Allowing evidence from warrantless searches could lead to agencies using other unlawful tactics. The exclusionary rule has both pros and cons, making it difficult to take a clear stance on supporting or opposing it. There are alternative proposals for the rule, as its intended meaning is different from its actual use.
According to Lafave, the exclusionary rule should only be applied when it is clear that the law enforcement officer knew or should have known that the search violated the Fourth Amendment (Lafave, 2009, p. 764). Instead of focusing on increasing or decreasing defendant rights, the focus should be on preventing and penalizing law enforcement agencies for using illegal methods to gather evidence. Implementing laws that hold police departments accountable is essential.
One possible form of punishment for police departments is the cessation of federal funding. It is well known that many police departments benefit from federal grants for various purposes. Withholding grant money from police departments that have been found to violate new laws mandating correct evidence collection methods could serve as a deterrent. Furthermore, it is argued that the exclusionary rule contradicts common law principles. In common law, a defendant is typically unable to challenge the use of unlawfully obtained evidence during trial (Lynch, 2000, p. 746).
One potential solution is to prohibit any evidence obtained illegally from being presented in court. This would serve as a form of punishment for police and investigators, as incriminating evidence could potentially jeopardize their case. By enforcing this rule, investigators would be discouraged from using illegal tactics, ultimately resolving the issue of having to rely on the exclusionary rule. It is important to acknowledge that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights aim to both authorize and restrict government powers.
The exclusionary rule, regardless of one's stance on it, mandates that law enforcement must follow the Constitutional limitations on government powers. According to Gittins (2007), while it has been a long-standing principle in U.S. law, applying the exclusionary rule can be difficult for courts when deciding how to address Fourth Amendment violations. Despite its complex interpretation, law enforcement agencies are required to follow the guidelines of the exclusionary rule as long as it is part of the law.
The Exclusionary Rule: Protecting Constitutional Rights. (2017, Jan 26). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/exclusionary-rule-pros-and-cons-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
