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).
It reflects the importance of civilian’s rights. Sometimes police and prosecutors intimidate and force the defendant to confess a guilty of crime to their convince and to increase their popularity of the efficiency of police department. But the law says no person is guilty of a crime until proven otherwise. This case gives us a clear picture of American judicial system. If the defendants are deprived of their rights they can fall to the conviction of a crime very easily the crime which they did not commit.
Although the judge rejected the plea bargain and gave Klukow 10 years, it still shows how murderers get lenient sentences from plea bargains (Hanson). Lenient deals on sentencing exhibit how plea bargains are not effective and should not be used in the judicial due process. Using plea bargains in the criminal justice system violates the people's constitutional rights. The Constitution clearly states, "the Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury," emphasizing the importance that jury trials are suppose to play in the judicial due process. Furthermore in the Bill of Rights, the 6th amendment states, "...the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and... ... middle of paper ... ...g rent ("The Plea").
charged with the rape and kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed the case. The legal issue is whether the law enforcement is required to deprive the arrested criminals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self – incrimination before they are being interrogated. The Supreme Court held that incriminating statements made by the suspected are only admissible if their Miranda rights has been read to them. It is important that upon request, the criminal must be informed of their constitutional rights and must be allowed to exercise them.
There have been many cases in which the government has broken the defendant’s rights and then the defendant can easily win the case, if it even makes it to trial. These processes assure that the accused citizen’s have a fair, just trial and experience justice in the justice system. The Fourth Amendment “protects citizens against unlawful search and seizures” by the federal government, incorporated to the states by Mapp v. Ohio (Book). This incorporated the search warrant into due processes for police men and women of the states. The Fifth Amendment establishes the due process of law and protects the right to grand jury, protects against double jeopardy, and protects against self-incrimination by the federal government, incorporated by Miranda v. Arizona (Lineberry).
This known as the “functional test” to immunities. When a prosecutor performs “advocative” conduct, that is, he “act[s] within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution,” Imbler v. Pachtman, that person is absolutely immune from suit (Justia, Supreme Court Center). However, if in the performance of the advocative conduct the prosecutor at their trial improperly fabricated evidence and withheld evidence of an alternative suspect, can that prosecutor be sued? This was the subject of a suit brought by the defendants of Pottawattamie County v. Mcghee (Oyez Project). In referencing absolute immunity, the eighth circuit court reached an unanimous decision that such conduct did not fall under advocative conduct and thereby a prosecutor could be held liable for ... ... middle of paper ... ..., including but not limited to prosecutors unwilling to take to trial certain; less people willing to become prosecutors leading to more plea bargains and an increased length of time be-fore a case is tried; possibly denying the accused right to a speedy trial.
Lastly, double jeopardy, it prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charge. The 6th amendment gives you a lot of rights when it comes to trial. You get the opportunity to a speedy trial. A trial may not be delayed by a judge just due to the fact of your mistakes. Meaning someone can't be held in jail while their trial was being delayed.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen. It asserts that an individual can verbally waive their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so long as this waiver is not coerced by a government official. The Court goes on to decide that it is not required for suspects to demonstrate knowledge of these rights before waiving them. The blow to liberty interest is put most elegantly in Justice Marshall's dissent when he writes, "I have difficulty in comprehending how a decision made without knowledge of available alternatives can be treated as a choice at all." This precedent that a citizen may make a decision to waive their rights without knowing of the alternative, in this case maintaining the Fourth Amendment's protections, is perfectly legitimate is dangerous for liberty interests in a world where order-seeking policemen seek to take advantage of uninformed citizens.
The verdict of Miranda v. Arizona is an efficient way of informing criminal suspects of their rights established by the Constitution, allowing un-Constitutional confessions to be nullinvoid in the court of law. However, it does not enforce it well enough. For example, a statement taken in violation of Miranda can be used for impeachment purposes and deciding whether evidence derived from a Miranda violation is admissible. Also, Miranda applies to undercover police interrogation and prior to routine booking questions, protecting all suspect in American custody to be aware of their rights. Next, it says that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect after he makes a request for a lawyer.
The right of the people to have a trial by a jury from the people who are citizens of the United States. This protects people from government tyranny because it allows us to be tried by a jury of our peers and it will ensure that the government has a real case against the accused which would allow a just punishment with good cause. Amendment 8: Punishment will fit the crime, fair fines, no excessive bails, nor cruel and unusual punishment. The amendment is a safeguard for Americans against excessive