The Exclusionary Rule

4. Evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from trial whether or not the police acted in good faith?

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its suppression did not violate his (Maddox’s) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.

The Fourth Amendment is a persons right to privacy and protects them from an unlawful search and seizure. When an officer conducts an unlawful search and illegally collects evidence, the officer might try to present the evidence in the suspects trial.As a result of unreasonable search and seizure, the exclusionary rule was created. The exclusionary rule states that any criminal evidence collected by law enforcement officials in violation of a persons fourth amendments rights is inadmissible in court (Schmalleger, 128). However, the exclusionary rule was established to ensure that police officers abide by the rules and obtain warrants that permit them to effectively conduct a search and arrests, especially if the arrest made may lead to the

In criminal justice the exclusionary rule prohibits the use of illegally seized evidence or evidence that violates the offenders rights under the fourth, fifth, or sixth amendment. There are three exceptions under the exclusionary rule, “fruit of the poisoned tree”, inevitable discovery exception, and the good faith exception. These three exceptions each allow evidence that can be considered illegally obtained to be admissible in a court of law, given it fits in certain constraints. “Fruit of the poisoned tree” is a term for any verbal or physical evidence obtained by using illegally obtained evidence.

We are further protected by the “exclusionary rule,” which throws out any evidence that was collected under violation of the Fourth Amendment. This rule highly discourages authorities from going outside of their means to collect evidence. The downside to this rule is that it tends to let guilty defendants go free if their evidence was found in ways that violated the Fourth

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

Good Faith is the last exception. In this case, the magistrate issues a seizure warrant for acquiring evidence. However, this may not be in sync with the role of the exclusionary rule in deterring the police from any misconduct and also the evidence suppression may not occur. The limitation of this exception is that, if the defense can convince the judge that the officer was reckless in seizing the evidence, then the good faith will be nullified.

“The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the rule's prime purpose is to deter future unlawful police conduct and thereby effectuate the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). They are saying is that the need for the rule is to deter illegal techniques that police use to obtain evidence, not to simply give more rights to the defendant. As Estreicher and Weick pointed out, “all of the cases since Wolf requiring the exclusion of illegal evidence have been base on the necessity for an effective deterrent to illegal police action” (Estreicher & Weick, 2010, p. 4). So instead of looking at the exclusionary rule as the end-all-right that citizens are

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 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]

There has always been the thought that police can abuse their power especially when it comes to collection of evidence that could incriminate someone for something that was illegally obtained. The exclusionary rule was put in place to counteract evidence that may have ben illegally obtained to be inadmissible in a court of law with few exceptions to the rule.

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

The exclusionary rule is "a rule that disallows the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials" (Exclusionary Rule). Security officers, in general, usually have the same authority as a citizen. The exclusionary rule generally does not apply to private security unless it is abusive or becomes an invasion of privacy (Chapter 7: Security and the Law). Facilities that hire private security personnel should always have clear policies on what is and what is not allowed, such as for search and seizure. In cases of force, training and adequate documentation of that training is required.

This novel is also used to point out the power that stories have for community building. The women at the convent learned to heal themselves through confronting and sharing the stories of their traumatic past thus, by using narration as the means of reconnecting to others and the natural world. Unlike the women from the convent, the women living in the town seem to be haunted by their past especially the story they relentlessly repeat named “The Disallowing”. This story becomes the “controlling” story of the townspeople. It is the “story that explained why neither the [ex-slaves] nor their descendants could tolerate anybody but themselves” (13). Not only do the citizens of Ruby dislike additions to tjeri community from a family who did not