Criticism Of The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is one of the utmost controversial rulings in our judicial system. The exclusionary rule can be best defined as “the principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect 's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (The Free Dictionary , 1981-2015) The exclusionary rule is not to be mistaken as being intertwined within the constitution for it is not a part of it, instead it is a remedy specially designed by the courts to reconcile violations against a defendant’s 4th amendment rights. Although it’s chief purpose maybe deeply rooted into the 4th amendment, but its protective

Critics find it harshly unfair that a defendant can be exonerated solely based on the mistakes of a police officer particularly if it was accidental. Those critics sticking to this position must remember that weather an individual’s rights are violated on accident or on purpose it remains that their rights are still violated. If not for the exclusionary rule, what incentive is there to stop a frustrated or corrupt officer from conducting an illegal search? Sure there are plenty of officers who work ethically, but there are officers if not required to uphold the 4th amendment through the exclusionary rule would seize to go through the tedious process of getting a

This doctrine states that evidence found through a search with an invalid search warrant is still admissible as long as it can be proven that the officer believed the warrant was in fact valid. If the officer is believed to have thought the warrant was authentic then it can be said that he or she had acted on good faith thus all evidence gathered is admissible. Although I am a proponent for the exclusionary rule I am in accordance with the good faith doctrine simply because it protects officers while not directly undermining the exclusionary rule. If the officer truly believed that the warrant was valid, then it demonstrates that he or she followed the appropriate procedure and rightfully conducted the search in accordance to the 4th amendment right of the defendant. The good faith doctrine and all other doctrines that limit the power of the exclusionary rule should not be frowned upon, instead it should be