Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Exclusionary rule arguments
The pros and cons of the exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Exclusionary rule arguments
The ‘exclusionary rule’ was created to put under limitations the Federal officials and United States courts as they exercise their powers and authority. Additionally, it is in place to see that people maintain their own privacy and rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendments. It also allows people to secure their premises, person, papers and other effects from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures under the pretense of law. The United States constitution does not allow or tolerate police searches and seizures without warrants and therefore illegal searches and seizure unless there is a good reason for it. This article will argue that the provision for ‘exclusionary rule’ has deterred the police from harassing innocent citizens particularly the minorities groups and defendants too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures. It is also the only way to dissuade the constitutional violations of the fourth amendments.
Keywords: exclusionary rule, Supreme Court, Fourth Amendment, Searches, Seizures, Exception
Introduction
‘Exclusionary Rule’ is a principle cure for constitutional criminal procedure and also it is the most controversial. The rights were strengthened after America’s Supreme Court exercised the rule during one of their rulings and inserted the clause. The ‘exclusionary rule’ suggests that the prosecution may do without or suppress the ill-gotten gain as evidence obtained from an unlawful seizures and searches (Calabresi, 2003). ‘The Exclusionary Rule’ also allows for the defendant to dispute the admissibility of evidence by introducing a motion at the pre-trial to suppress the evidence. If by any chance the court permits production of said evidence at the trial stage and the jury find the defendant...
... middle of paper ...
...ts too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures. It is also the only way to dissuade the constitutional violations of the fourth amendments.
References
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (Supreme Court December 11, 1886).
Calabresi, G. (2003). The Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy,
111-118.
Geller, W. (1975). Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule and Its
Alternatives. Washington University Law Quarterly, 623-722.
Jones, D. S. (1997). Application of The “Exclusionary Rule” To Bar Use Of Illegally Seized
Evidence in Civil School Disciplinary Proceedings. Journal of Urban and Contemporary
Law, 375-397.
Kamisar, Y. (1983). Does (Did) (Should) the Exclusionary Rule Rest on a 'Principled Basis'
Rather than an 'Empirical Prop
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 ,
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.
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
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
This paper will discuss the aspects of the forth amendment rights in relation to the exclusionary rule, exceptions and holding. The facts on deterrence in court and evaluating the ins and outs of the exclusionary rule what is acceptable and admissible and inadmissible in the United States courts and Supreme Court. This paper will exhibit the constitutional and unconstitutional rights and laws. The future goals of the exclusionary rule and instruction of ethical and unethical choices by officers in relation to law enforcement.
The Utah Court affirmed their the disitrct corts decision and ruled the evidence as admissable. However,ther Utah Supreme Court ruled revered the decision and suprresed thed evidience stating that “attenuation exception” in relation to the exclusjonary rule does no justifiy incident to arrest, thus the exeption is exlcuded. According to the majorirty of th Supreme JSuitice’s an illegal stop is justified and the exlcuonsary rules does not apply if the suspect has an outstanding arrest warnt and that the misconduct was not blatlant. In other words, “the exlcusuon outweights its befnefits”. In addition, calucalting the dsiitance from the arrest to theresidence and its further anyalysis is suffeicnt enough to jsutifiy the arrest and clarify the evidence as asmissable (suffiecntly attenuated). In this case, the exlcuujonsary rule did not help Edward
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.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments
About forty-five years ago, laws like the Bill of Rights were used very vaguely. Law enforcement had the perception that they could come and go as they pleased. They would enter a suspect’s home with-out a search warrant and would harass witnesses until they got a lead in their investigation. Interrogations would frequently turn violent very quickly. Lawyers began to noticing bruises on their suspects; so they began to investigate the local police departments. In turn police officers began to use yellow pages to beat their suspects, since books left few to no visible bruises. As Chief of Justice, Earl Warren began accelerating the process of assuring every suspect received their individual rights. This process included strict procedural requirements during a ...
Stop and frisk has encountered many opponents who think this tool is discriminatory and often targets minorities, specifically black and Hispanic people. For that reason, a federal judge ruled to use this practice more judicious after hundreds of complains against the police department. However, the community is calling back for stop and frisk since they have noticed that it is a necessary practice to keep a safe city. Thus, the problem regarding is the increase of violence in New York City due to the restriction and less use of stop and frisk.
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).
The Fourth Amendment states “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.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
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.
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.