Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
exclusionary rule arguments
pro 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 Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently executed by the New York Police Department and it grant police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them question and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fell under assault and irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identify himself as a police officer, and make reasonable inquires.
This leads explanations leads to the conclusion that there are implications of being part of the criminal justice system. The exclusionary rule along with other justice terms such as the fruit of the poisoned tree force police and other law enforcement members to obtain evidence properly and in respect to the Due process. According to the textbook Criminal Justice in Action, any arrest or seizure is unreasonable unless is supported by probable cause (Gaines, 2011). More than probable cause, police officers should rely on facts and circumstances that will lead them to arrest the individual accordingly.
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 judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.
At the core of the stop and frisk policy as utilized by the New York Police Department is racial profiling. Racial profiling has a significant and often controversial place in the history of policing in the United States. Racial profiling can be loosely defined as the use of race as a key determinant in law enforcement decisions to stop, interrogate, and/or detain citizens (Weitzer & Tuch, 2002). Laws in the United States have helped to procure and ensure race based decisions in law enforcement. Historically, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions which increase the scope of discretion of a law enforcement officer. For example, traffic stops can be used to look for evidence even though the officer has not observed any criminal violation (Harris, 2003). Proponent's for racial profiling reason that racial profiling is a crime fighting tool that does treat racial/ethnic groups as potential criminal suspects based on the assumption that by doing so increases the chances of catching criminals (Harris, 2003). Also, it is important to note, law enforcement officers only need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk, probable cause is not required as in other circumstances (Harris, 2003). It is because of this assumption that the New York Police Department’s stop and frisk policy is still a relevant issue.
The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person” (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten, 2009). Before this rule, under common law, evidence was acknowledged in court as long as it satisfied evidentiary criteria for admissibility such as relevance and trustworthiness. Any evidence meeting these principles was admitted because it was considered to be helping to achieve justice. Under common law, evidence that was attained by illegal searches and seizures was allowed (Tinsley & Kinsella, 2003). During this period, the protections of the Fourth Amendment were unfilled words to persons condemned until 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States.
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
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.
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 ...
The most common exception is when an officer is acting in good faith. Other exceptions include when a person’s rights are not violated by the search; if it can be proven that the evidence would have been predictably discovered; if the evidence was discovered by an uncontrollable chain of events; to prove a defendant committed perjury when that defendant chose to stand witness; and as evidence before a grand jury (Exclusionary Rule - Origins And Development Of The Rule,
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.
However, based on the evidence that was retained, Weeks was found guilty, and subsequently sent to prison. This direct violation of his rights is appalling. His attorney appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, arguing that if some of Weeks ' belongings were taken illegally then all of it was taken illegally. The Idea behind the exclusionary rule is leading up to the fact that if one piece of evidence was taken illegally because the federal agents failed to obtain a warrant would be comparable to the case Mapp v Ohio. The Court agreed on the appeal and overturned Weeks ' conviction. This famous case paved the way for exclusionary rule.
(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).
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.