The fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule have played a pivotal role in the court systems of the United States in determining whether or not evidence was legally obtained by a law enforcement officer. The fourth amendment protects US citizens from illegal search and seizures along with the right to avoid having to self-incriminate one’s self in court. The rights of the citizen will supersede the court case even if without reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty of committing a crime due to the exclusionary rule. The rule will essentially allow the court to ignore incriminating evidence in order to protect the rights of the defendant. There are some exceptions that have been made such as the “good faith exception” and the “inevitable
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.
Because of this, any court and especially one based upon this tort method would fail to hold a violating police official accountable for his actions. The exclusionary rule serves its purpose, and serves its purpose effectively. It creates a deterrent for police officers to respect one’s individual rights to privacy, and in doing so, forces them to perform their duty in a manner which is more consistent with the ideals of individual rights upon which this nation is based. If it should be at all changed, it should be to hold police officers more accountable for their illegal searches and seizures, as opposed to simply hampering their efforts toward a conviction. Bibliography 1) McCloskey, James.
By prohibiting investigatory searches and seizures for a completed, nonviolent misdemeanor, this Court will be able to deter the police misconduct. However, if this Court chooses to follow the majority rule, making it reasonable to conduct a stop for a completed misdemeanor, this Court will create a slippery slope, giving the police too much authority. If the police is handed too much authority, then the police may abuse its power by taking advantage of innocent citizens. Further, the police may rely on their prejudicial nature to conduct an investigatory stop for a completed misdemeanor. Therefore, in order to guard the constitution created by our Founding Fathers, this Court should adopt a per se bar for completed misdemeanors.
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.
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360).
The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule. 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).
In the constitution it states that “people shall be free from unreasonable searches, however it didn’t state what action the courts should take if an unreasonable search and seizure has occurred The Supreme courts then decided to create the Exclusionary rule in order to prevent law enforcement officers from conducting illegal search and seizures and violating citizen constitution rights. It also states that evidence that was illegally seized cannot be used as evidence; “We’re sorry" doesn't quite cut it. The courts gave as their rationale for the rule the concept of "unclean hands." ("Exclusionary rule,"). If a search is made without probable cause and evidence is found ,it will be found inadmissible by the court However the exclusionary rule does not apply in a grand jury proceeding, parole reversal hearing or a civil case.
Lawyers will sometimes, but not usually, lie to help their client. Many more will present a 'false defense' to defend their client. "...A false defense is an attempt to 'convince the judge or jury that facts established by the state and known to the attorney to be true are not true, or that the facts known to the attorney to be false or true'"(Mitchell 18). Although many people think attorneys should do whatever it takes to defend their client, lawyers should be prohibited from presenting a false case. Citizens of the United States are innocent until proven guilty.
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. Introduction All evidence found within illegal standing and evidence that is illegally found by police without a search warrant, are inadmissible in court any illegal search done by officers