The Exclusionary Rule made its first appearance in the judicial system when it was put there by the Supreme Court thanks to Weeks v. United States. At first the Exclusionary Rule was only used in federal cases, only after fifty years of being adopted by the Supreme Court was it used in state cases as well. Before Weeks v. United States, any and all evidence that was acquired illegally or that violated the peoples constitutional rights was still used, if it was practical to the circumstance. The definition of the Exclusionary Rule is, “a rule that forbids the introduction of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial (The Free Dictionary, 2014).” The Fourth Amendment reads “…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 (Law, 2008).”
The main purpose and rationale behind the Exclusionary Rule is to deter the criminal justice system from taking items and facts through illegal means. The notion was to try to expurgated and terminate law enforcement dishonesty. This meant that there would finally be law enforcement that would do their best to protect everyone’s individual rights because an officer now had to have probable cause before arresting anyone or seizing their property. After the Exclusionary Rule was put in place, any time after the criminal justice system made illegal searches and seizures, any evidence that was found was thrown out in court.
The Exclusionary Rule has three main points that keeps it running and fair. First, an illegal a...
... middle of paper ...
...antages to the Exclusionary Rule the advantages, in my opinion, far outweigh the disadvantages. It really is the only way to help avoid corruption. If the Exclusionary Rule wasn’t in place law enforcement would be able to come into anyone’s home and take anything they wanted to. I just don’t believe too much for obtaining evidence illegally, unless you happen upon the evidence, not breaking into a house.
In conclusion you will find that the Exclusionary Rule is actually nowhere in the Constitution, it was merely a judicial structure to make sure the Fourth Amendment was imposed. Even though there are a few exceptions to the rule, they really don’t over step the rule very much. Even though many criminals are released because of evidence obtained illegally, how can we continue to try and discourage police wrongdoing and also keep dangerous criminals off the streets?
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 rights of Dwight Dexter in the Fifth Amendment were violated. The amendment prevents the government from prosecuting people unfairly. Accused cannot be jailed or have their property taken without due process
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
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
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
...e Court would also fine Mr. Dickerson guilty of contraband. However, after reading the ruling, I understand how easily and differently the Fourth Amendment may be understood and withheld. Another good point was proven in the “Mapp vs. Ohio” case where law enforcement did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Interpretation of this amendment was apparent back in the 1760’s where they had cases based on the freedom of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is a very creative amendment that gives the people the right of freedom and to protect their own properties. As a future law enforcement officer, I chose this amendment to gather information on the proper procedures to obtain a search warrant and understand how improperly obtaining a search warrant may change an outcome of a case. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment may be perceived differently in a court of law.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
The way the police officer Martin McFadden had ignored the fourth amendment in order to catch John W. Terry & Chilton that was planning to rob a store and so the officer had stop and frisk the two suspect in which McFadden had found a concealed weapon which was a .38 caliber pistol and had two of the gun on them and so that they were charged by that ignoring the fourth amendment to find that the two were going to rob the place but also McFadden had frisked a person. Terry sentenced to 3 years, Chilton had served 13 months.
Similar to the exclusionary rule, fruits of the poisonous tree are evidence that can be omitted from court. If a search was conducted in violation of the Constitution and evidence from that search further lead to more evidence of wrong doing, that evidence as well would not be allowed to prosecute the defendant (Hall, 2014).