Legal Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule Essay

Throughout the past centuries, the United States has encountered many court cases dealing with illegally searching citizens homes and using the evidence found against them. Cases dealing with Search and Seizure have dated back to Mapp v. Ohio, in which Dollree Mapp’s apartment was illegally searched and child pornography was found. This case raised the question, may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding? This issue is a major problem because it could lead to many citizens rioting and even more cases dealing with this controversial topic. In spite of many attempts to eliminate illegal search and seizures, it has still been a reoccurring problem. Regarding the issue of search and seizure, the Supreme Court has developed a much

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

• Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining “searches”; 2) the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement’s proscription of police inquiries into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005).

The Supreme Court consolidated two cases where the police gained entry into the defendants’ home without a search warrant and seized evidence found in the house. The rule of law as read out under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment posits that the United States Constitution has prohibited warrantless entry and search of a premise, absent the exigent circumstances, regardless the existence of a probable cause. The courts in Payton held that the Fourth Amendment made it a violation to enter a premise during an arrest absent an arrest warrant and exigent circumstances; a person’s house is a critical point to which the constitutional safeguards should be respected.

Even though, the exclusionary rule was established to miss illegally seized evidence in court there are several exceptions that allow illegally seized evidence to be presented in trial. The exceptions include the good-faith exception, the plain-view doctrine, clerical error exception, emergency searches of property/emergency entry, impeachment, independent source, the inevitable discovery, the harmless error exception, and the rule of attenuation. A good faith exception is when an officer acts in good faith and believes that the evidence discovered complies with the persons fourth amendment rights. There are three court cases that helped mold and established the good faith exception. In the first court case is U.S. v. Leon, an informant had

The exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution because it was made by the court due to the need that presented itself. The intension was to ensure that the 4th Amendment is kept and not violated. Most people are aware of their right to privacy, and how it protects them from unwarranted searches. Nevertheless, most them do not comprehend how the Exclusionary Rule which ensures this right is guarded. The Exclusionary Rule is intended to refrain the police from misconduct. The 4th amendment right protects every citizen from illegal searches and arrests. When the police violates this 4 amendment right, the evidence they have collected will be avoided in the federal court.

Although the exclusionary rule most often is applied to violations of the Fourth Amendment, it has been applied to other constitutional violations as well.13

If the trial judge did not exclude the evidence from the trial, then the Supreme Court must overturn the conviction. In some cases, the accused will be retried without the use of the illegally obtained evidence. In other cases, there will not be a retrial because the illegally obtained evidence was the basis of the prosecution's case. The story of the birth and evolution of the exclusionary rule is complex and demonstrates the unique problems the Supreme Court has had to face when interpreting the Fourth Amendment."

Weeks v. United States (1914) is considered to be a landmark case and the first to address the Fourth Amendment in a Supreme Court setting. On December 21, 1911, police officers in Kansas City, Missouri entered the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks, who was working, using his hidden key. During this warrantless search of the home officers acquired papers, letters, books, and other items. These items were then used in court to prove Mr. Weeks was guilty of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. mail based on the evidence unlawfully collected from his residence. Mr. Weeks then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review his case. The ruling of this court was reversed, due to the evidence seized during the illegal search. It was noted that this

There has been an argument among legal experts that the provisions of the exclusionary rule are merely to deter the misconduct of the law enforcement personnel. In light of this, most courts do not adhere to the provisions of the exclusionary rule as it is viewed as an extension of the Fourth Amendment. Ideally, Police officers deem the law as an obstacle on their endeavors to

The following are the three justifications and their rationales for the exclusionary rule: Constitutional rights, judicial integrity and deterrence. Because of the Constitutional rights the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldn’t mean anything without the exclusion. In regards to judicial integrity the courts shouldn’t contribute in unconstitutional behavior by approving it. To ensure deterrence in negative police conduct steps in prevention of unconstitutional conduct by government officers are taken.

The U.S Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule to prevent the use of inappropriate behavior and violations of an individual’s rights by government officials through the use of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule protects the rights of the people under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and requires evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of government violations cannot be used as proof of guilt in a court of law [1]

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

To determine whether or not the admission of evidence is constitutionally permissible can be a very tough decision. There are many laws and regulations that must be adhered to in order for evidence to be admissible to ensure that a defendant’s right are not violated. One of the most important rules that help protect against illegal evidence being admitted into evidence is the Exclusionary rule. This rule helps to ensure that evidence which is admissible into criminal prosecutions are not only relevant and reliable, but have not violated the fourth or fifth amendment due to misconduct. Specifically, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence obtained by violating a defendant’s constitutional rights to be introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving direct guilt Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 218-219).Police misconduct often leads to evidence that can either be obtained legally through the use of illegal evidence, evidence that is illegally obtained through violations of other rules, regulations, a defendants rights, or evidence that is obtained illegally but falls under one of the exclusionary rule exceptions such as the plain view doctrine (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 219-221).

In order to rightfully arrest a suspect in a crime or to appropriately try a criminal case in court, evidence must be gathered in order to prove the commission of a crime. There are legal standards which dictate how evidence is gathered and used in order to prove a person is guilty or convict him or her of an actual criminal offense. The Exclusionary Rule was established under constitutional law for basically two essential purposes. One reason was to prevent the unlawful gathering of evidence by law enforcement against a person. Secondly, the rule was also established so a person could not be compelled to incriminate themselves. This rule was initiated in order to protect guaranteed constitutional rights and to ensure that law enforcement did not overstep their authority in the process of collecting evidence. The rule also extends to ensure that a person does not participate in self-incrimination.