Pros And Cons Of Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a judge-made case law that is publicized by the Supreme Court to avert police or government unlawfulness. It also forbids proof acquired violating a person’s constitutional rights from being allowed in court. The exclusionary rule is the most used method to hold forth constitutional violations by the government in criminal cases because of its closeness and the effect on search and seizures that are found unconstitutional due to police performance. The exclusionary rule may also aid in preservation in judicial morals by stopping judicial consensus in refusing the Fourth Amendment rights of a person. It also secures a person’s right to privacy (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015). Below will discuss three high profile cases that involved the exclusionary rule. The first case that will be discussed is Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Dollree Mapp resided on the second floor of an apartment complex in Cleveland. A tip came into police that someone who was wanted for questioning for a bombing was hiding out at that location. Without a search warrant, police officers went to the house and

Ohio (1968). A Cleveland police detection saw John Terry and two other men monitoring a store downtown to rob. After watching their odd behavior for about 10 minutes, he apprehended them and frisked them. Terry failed to conceal his weapon and was convicted at trial. A sequence of failed appeals took him to the Supreme Court. The court supported the arrest and the frisk for weapons 8 to 1. The Supreme Court recognized a lower level of a rationale for the steps other than probable cause. The court determined the arrest and frisk to be plausible. The arrest and frisking must be explained by credible suspicion and is not a law that anyone who is lawfully stopped can be automatically frisked. Forty years later a temporary arrest is still called a “Terry Stop,” and a frisk for weapons is known as “Terry Search” (Rutledge,