The exclusionary rule is a court-made rule. This means that it was created by the U.S. Supreme Court.” The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts through the Fourth Amendment. The Court has ruled that it applies in state courts through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bills Of Rights which consists of the first ten amendments applies to actions of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, the Court has stated the protections in the Bill of Rights are applicable to actions of the states.” (TheFreeDictionary.com). Created to prevent police misconduct, the exclusionary rule allows courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being presented at a trial when proof that the evidence was obtained in an unconstitutional manner. The exclusionary rule allows defendants to challenge the admissibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence. The “fruit of the poisoned tree” doctrine is tied to the exclusionary rule in court. According to Dempsey, John S., and Linda S. Forst (2011),” In its colorful language, the Court compared the illegal search to be the “poisoned tree” and any evidence resulting from the illegal search as the fruit of the poisoned tree.” Essentially the tainted evidence is illegal to use in court against a defendant.
The Use of the Exclusionary Rule by the Supreme Court of The United States
The exclusionary rule evolved in U.S. law through a series of Supreme Court cases. Since 1914, the Supreme Court has been concerned with the use of illegal means by which the police seize evidence in violation of the constitution and then convict a defendant in court.
Weeks v. United States (1914)
Exclusionary rule applied to federal law enforcement agencies
R...
... middle of paper ...
...rohibits all unreasonable search and seizures and requires a warrant.”(para. 1). The officers in this case deprived the woman of due process. The lack of a warrant being present upon entering the woman’s home was a clear violation of her constitutional rights as a home owner. “In general, officers can arrest a person (1) for any crime committed in the officer’s presence, (2) for a felony not committed in the officer’s presence if they have probable cause to believe that the person they have arrested committed the felony or, (3) under the authority of a warrant.” (POLICE, 2011, p.183).
“Most Supreme Court Cases regarding criminal justice try to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the society. The Supreme Court has the difficult task of bringing balance between these two often conflicting goals.” (POLICE, 2011, p.181).
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
United States, the Court concluded that in order to protect the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, illegally seized evidence must be excluded in federal trials” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 215). The key phrase in this statement is “federal trials” because this indicates that the state courts did not have to adopt the exclusionary rule, and could still admit illegally seized evidence in their state-level court systems if they so pleased it. Unfortunately for Mapp’s, the state of Ohio did not adopt the exclusionary rule until later, which leads to me her arguments. Mapp’s argued that any evidence that is obtained illegally should be inadmissible in court. She further argued that the exclusionary rule or the Fourth Amendment rights should apply to all criminal prosecutions, including state
The decision comes with a number of justices choosing to concur in part and dissent in part, the court said that the searches and seizures of Coolidge’s property were unconstitutional. Justice Stewart’s opinion wrote that the warrant authorized to seize his automobile was not valid because it was not issued by a “nature and detached magistrate.” Stewart also rejected the argument of New Hampshire argument to make an exception to the search warrant with “special circumstances” neither the incident to arrest doctrine nor the plain view doctrine justified the search, and that an automobile exception was also
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides protection to the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule was a judicial precedence that made evidence obtained in violation of the US Constitution inadmissible in federal, state and local courts. Its primary focus being to discourage illegal or inappropriate law enforcement investigation practices. This ruling applies not only to evidence obtained directly from an illegal search or seizure, but also branches out to cover evidence indirectly obtained known as fruit of the poisonous tree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine also referred to as the derivative evidence rule, prohibits submission of evidence that has been legally acquired through the
From the Ferguson, Missouri case of an officer “wrongfully” protecting himself to the Texas DWI case involving the father murdering the murderer of his sons, the media helps play a larger role on the scale to emphasize more attraction to the topic of the moment. With the increasing complexity and reach of the law, to nullify is to be a useful tool in a democratic society. However, a verdict should be based on the law as decided by the whole people, not the few who make up the jury of a particular case. Although judges and legal scholars take a variety of positions of the subject of jury nullification, the validity of the practice is said to follow logically from several aspects of our judicial system. In the general, judges are unwilling in most states to even inform juries the option of
(Legal dictionary, 2015). Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. “ Good faith exception – this exception allowing evidence obtained by law enforcement or police officers who rely on a search warrant they believe to be valid to be admitted at a trial. “ (Exclusionary rule, 2015) “ Attenuation Doctrine – an exception permitting evidence improperly obtained to be admitted at trial if the connection between the evidence and the illegal means by which it was obtained is very remote “. (Exclusionary Rule, 2015) The next exception of the exclusionary rule is the “ Independent Source Doctrine, this is an exception permitting evidence obtained illegally too be admitted at trial if the evidence was later obtained by an independent person through legal activities. (Exclusionary Rule, 2015).
Civilrights.org. (2002, April 13). Justice on trial. Washington, DC: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights/Leadership Conference on Civil RightsEducation Fund. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from Civilrights.org Web site: http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/cj/
When the law enforcement searched Wurie’s phone, they did not have a warrant to have the illegal evidence from his cell phone, moreover, it required the court to reconsider Wurie’s sentence. Furthermore, the case of the United States v. Olmstead, Olmstead was suspected as a bootlegger, therefore, got the federal agents to install wiretaps in the basement of his building, convicting him of being a bootlegger with the illegal evidence that got from the wiretaps. Most people argued that the federal agents violated Olmstead’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment, but the court agreed that it did not violate those amendments and that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for wiretapping, if listening devices were outside of the home. Also, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, law officials convicted Mapp of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. However, during they're illegal search they didn’t find evidence of being a suspect to a crime, they still arrested for obscene materials they found during the search. Since the law officials search was illegal, the Supreme Court agreed that the evidence of the obscene materials be concealed in court by providing a limited
In modern-day America the issue of racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is controversial because there is substantial evidence confirming both individual and systemic biases. While there is reason to believe that there are discriminatory elements at every step of the judicial process, this treatment will investigate and attempt to elucidate such elements in two of the most critical judicial junctures, criminal apprehension and prosecution.
DELIBERATING CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: A WAY OUT OF GET TOUGH JUSTICE? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 37-43. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1016637721).
Thomson Reuters. (2013). The Fourth Amendment and the “Exclusionary Rule”. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Policing, Race, and Criminal Injustice." Human Rights. Spring 2009: 6. SIRS Issues Researcher. Pritchard, Justin.
Garrett, Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. 86. Print.