In today’s society being aware of your individual rights as citizen can be critical in your experience with the law and government. Some people are not aware of their rights and in turn are not aware when they are violated. In this essay I will define the exclusionary rule, discuss how it evolved and its subsequent curtailment in light of the cases that discuss it, and what accounts for the curtailment.
The average person is not aware of the many rights they are granted as a U.S. citizen. The exclusionary rule provides that any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in a criminal trial for the purpose of proving guilt (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 154). Thus meaning if a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable then it was in violation of the fourth Amendment. In addition a warrant must be issued and state what is to be searched and seized. The exclusionary rule is a remedy for violations of the fourth amendment, however; it was not derived from the fourth amendment (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014:154).
Like the majority of rules in criminal law they begin with a series of cases that build upon something greater for example the exclusionary rule. The first case that was similar to the exclusionary rule was Boyd v. United States (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014:154). In this case the supreme court overturned Boyd’s conviction and the case remanded to a lower court in which all the evidence provided was excluded being that the he had been compelled to witness against himself (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 154). In addition to Boyd’s case there was Adams v. United States and Weeks v. United States (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 155). In the case of Weeks v. ...
... middle of paper ...
...ess than a clear casual connection between the illegal police action and the evidence (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014:157). In the case of United States v. Leon the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained by the police acting in good faith is admissible which came to be known as the good faith exception (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 158). Last of exclusionary rule exceptions is the inevitable discovery exception which permits the introduction at trial of evidence that was illegally obtained by police officers if the police can demonstrate that they would have eventually discovered the evidence by legal means (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 159).
In conclusion to this topic I have defined the exclusionary rule. In addition I have discussed how it evolved and its subsequent curtailment in light of the cases that discussed it. I have also discussed what accounts for the curtailment.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
United States v. Leon was a U.S. Supreme Court case about drug trafficking, where the Supreme Court created the exception of ?good faith? to the exclusionary rule. In August 1981, in Burbank, California, the California Police Department received an anonymous tip, accusing Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart as drug dealers. Police began watching their homes and followed leads based on the cars that were regularly seen at the homes. The police identified Alberto Leon and Ricardo Del Castillo as also being involved in the trafficking operation. Based on this surveillance and information
Friedman, L. S. (2010). What Is the State of Civil Liberties in the United States?. Civil liberties (pp. 11-49). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
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
Many stories people read are written for the express purpose of entertainment and sometimes even to persuade, but few are written to teach a moral. The story “A Fable with Slips of White Paper Spilling From The Pockets” written by Kevin Brockmeier does just that. Although relatively short, the story is filled with words of wisdom and life lessons that are meant to instill a sense of selflessness. The story is about a man who finds God’s overcoat from which he finds prayers from the people he encounters. Kevin Brockmeier makes exceptional use of magic realism and symbolism to teach a moral lesson.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
Thomson Reuters. (2013). The Fourth Amendment and the “Exclusionary Rule”. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search
...’ 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.
Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials by Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin and Jo Murkens (Paperback - 12 Aug 2010) chapter 8 p 368-418