Explain why you believe or don’t believe that exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule should be made.
The Exclusionary Rule is a simple, judge-made rule to prevent illegally seized evidence by police from being admissible. Therefore, if an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is violated, or their Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights are violated, this can result in the invocation of the Exclusionary Rule. Basically, the Exclusionary Rule has a two-fold purpose to protect an individual’s constitutional rights and to deter police misconduct.
So, do I believe exceptions should be made to the Exclusionary Rule is not exactly easy to answer. The exceptions made have a purpose based on previous case law, but can any of these exceptions be fooled or applied inconsistently? Absolutely.
Select three exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and cite your reasons for their validity and any reason why the
…show more content…
Even if the crime laboratories are backed up, there will likely be some sort of truthful evidence recovered from the scene, eventually. If using the ruse works in obtaining a confession than the officer knew how to play his cards correctly. An example is a man is murdered in an airport parking lot, the door is open to his car and it is clear the interior of the car has been rifled through. In addition, there are several shell casings beside the body. By allowing the officer to lie about having fingerprints (from the casings, car door, or the interior of the car) and stating to the suspect that the airport parking lot has 360-degree video recording 24/7, may cause the suspect to voluntarily confess. The officer is not using coercion, no threatening tactics, just a ruse. If the suspect is innocent then he has no worries. But, if the suspect thinks he has been caught red-handed, and out of guilt confesses to the murder and
The federal court rejected dismissed Franklin’s case, because Title IX did not allow for monetary relief, The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the court’s
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 ,
Justice Paxson said that the charitable immunity rule is “hoary with antiquity and prevails alike in this country and in England.” (Fire Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, Pennsylvania)
Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court Case in 1961 is historically significant as it was a turning point that changed our legal system by extending the exclusionary rule that existed at the federal level to include state courts. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, without a warrant, to be used against the defendant in court. Before this case, each state decided whether to adopt the exclusionary rule. At the time of this case, twenty-four states were not using the exclusionary rule. The decision in this case meant that all states needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
[47] See Justice Murphy’s dissent, wherein he insists that “it is idle to speculate on other situations that might involve § 20 which are not now before us.” Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 136 (1945).
The Supreme Court felt that the death penalty in his case was constitutional and that the eighth amendment was not violated because there was significant evidence of “aggravating circumstances” where it was necessary to impose the death penalty. Gregg disagreed and said the death penalty itself is unconstitutional and that it violated the eight (cruel and unusual punishment) and fourteenth (civil rights) amendment. The court heard his case in 1976 and
The exclusionary rule may be a great tool to boost the Fourth Amendment faith was never mentioned in the Constitution either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, it is often considered as a remedy to policing methods that the court created. This makes it unconstitutional, resulting in people questioning its effectiveness and calling for its removal from court
The exclusionary rule excludes any evidence that has been improperly or illegally seized. “The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter and discourage police violations of constitutional rights, as well as the violation of statutory rights of defendants, and the violations of court rules. The goal of the exclusionary rule is to deter the improper police, which in theory benefits all citizens, but in most cases the direct beneficiary of the rule is someone who would be convicted if the evidence were not excluded.”
...ate the exclusionary rule all in the name of anti-terroism. However the exclusionary rule’s power was pristinely intended to be used only in federal cases but its was later extended to the state level by the landmark case Mapp vs. Ohio in 1961.This precedent means that all evidence seized, whether by state officials under incipient anti-terrorist state laws, or by federal agencies under the USA PATRIOT Act, is subject to the Fourth Amendment and its exclusionary rule.The Supreme Court has additionally been required to apply the principles of the Fourth Amendment to new technologies which were not yet discovered in 1791.Notwithstanding the last 200 years of case precedent which greatly expanded the analysis of the Fourth Amendment, the NSA wiretapping (under which the Patriot Act allows) greatly expands the authority of the NSA and encroaches on those precedents.
In the federal and State courts, evidence illegally obtained by law-enforcement officers cannot be acknowledged in a criminal court for prosecution, should the accused objects to its admission (Paulsen 1963). In my humble opinion, the exclusionary rule should be applied to any evidence or person obtained illegally. As a police officer, we must respect all the laws of evidence whether we like them or not.
The concept of the exclusionary rule was first established in the United States Supreme Court ruling of Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, the Cleveland Police Department entered the residence of Dollaree Mapp to search for a wanted fugitive that was believed to be hiding in Mapp's home (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.). While searching for the fugitive, Police found books containing lewd material. After discovering the books, police arrested Mapp but never charged her with anything (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.). Mapp claimed that the seizure of evidence in her case violated the fourth amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure (“Mapp V Ohio,” n.d.).
The brief also argues that the Ashcroft decision avoids constitutional problems by refusing to discriminate against terminally ill persons in enforcement of federal drug laws.
The exclusionary rule is a legal doctrine in the United States supported and affirmed by the Constitution. It holds that any evidence that was searched illegally and that violates the rights of defendants cannot sometimes be used in a criminal prosecution. The exclusionary rule was created in order to protect three amendments of the constitution, the first is the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and requires of a warrant and probable cause for the search to occur. The second, the Fifth Amendment that guarantees that no person shall be incriminated in any case and that cannot testify against themselves, it also states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
There are, be that as it may, researchers who reject this regulation and contend against prevention in discipline. Their contentions are: