Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule
Argument for the exclusionary rule
Exclusionary rule
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule
The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule was originally created in 1914 in Weeks v. United States. However, it only stated that evidence obtained illegally couldn’t be used in Federal cases. This meant that state police were still free to obtain evidence illegally and use it in court. State police could even hand off evidence that was illegally gathered to federal law enforcement, this was known as the “silver platter doctrine.” It was known as this because evidence that wasn’t seized legally could still be turned over “as if on a silver platter.” The Exclusionary Rule was finally applied by the United States Supreme Court to the states in Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. This purpose of this rule is to prevent law enforcement from performing any unlawful searches and seizures. This rule states that any and all evidence collected illegally cannot be used as evidence against defendants in court. This rule also states that any evidence collected as an indirect result of illegally obtained evidence would not be admissible in court. This is also known as “the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Without the Exclusionary Rule the Fourth Amendment would likely be violated often. The Fourth Amendment is the …show more content…
According to the Sixth Amendment a defendant has the right to counsel, the right to know the nature of their crimes, the right to a speedy trial, a fair jury, and the chance to confront the witnesses accusing the defendant of a crime. When a defendant isn’t given the right to counsel or when a defendant isn’t properly Mirandized, any and all evidence obtained becomes inadmissible in court. The Exclusionary rule also comes into play with the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment gives the individual the right to a grand jury, forbids double jeopardy, and the right not to self-incriminate. Therefore, when a defendant is coerced into a confession this confession could be thrown out in
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
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
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
I believe this United States Supreme Court case is particularly important because it ultimately defends a person?s Constitutional right to privacy. As stated before, until this decision was made, the search and seizure laws were given little consideration. Although there is always an exception to the rule, for the most part, evidence that is obtained in a way that violates a person?s Constitutional right is inadmissible in Court. This decision has most definitely refined the laws of the admissibility of evidence and the procedures followed by those in law enforcement.
When a defendant asserts a mental status defense and supports it with evidence, the defendant waives the Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to evidence from a court ordered mental examination used to rebut the defense.
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
Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court Case in 1961 is historically significant as it was a turning point that changed our legal system by extending the exclusionary rule that existed at the federal level to include state courts. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, without a warrant, to be used against the defendant in court. Before this case, each state decided whether to adopt the exclusionary rule. At the time of this case, twenty-four states were not using the exclusionary rule. The decision in this case meant that all states needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
The U.S supreme court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp, ruling that unlawfully seized evidence can not be used in courts. They considered
The exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment by federal or state police from being used in court against the defendant. Its primary purpose is to discourage police misconduct in the search and seizure of property. The exclusionary rule first appeared in 1886 in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, but it wasn’t until 1914 in Weeks v. United States, 232U.S. 383 that the rule made inadmissible any evidence illegally obtained by federal officers in all federal criminal prosecutions. Finally, after 47 years of federal officers’ end-run around the exclusion rule (silver plate doctrine), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule was to be applied to state courts as well in Mapp v. Ohio, 37 U.S. 643 (1961).
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
Indeed, as the Court held in Weeks v. U.S., any evidence that is obtained through violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in federal court, further clarified by the Exclusionary Rule. However, the ruling in Wolf v. Colorado, allowed evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be used in State courts, despite the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court addressed the conflict between the two aforementioned doctrines by overruling the Wolf case altogether. As Justice Clark reasoned "There is no war between the Constitution and common sense". It is illogical to allow a state's prosecutor to use evidence illegally seized, that a federal prosecutor would otherwise not be allowed to use, when both actors are bound by the same Constitution. Moreover, a State's failure to adhere to the principles addressed by the Federal Constitution only influences the practice of disobedience. Furthermore, the rights secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, extend the applicability of the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy to States. Thus, the inadmissibility of evidence in courts, is enforceable to both federal and state
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
Similar to the exclusionary rule, fruits of the poisonous tree are evidence that can be omitted from court. If a search was conducted in violation of the Constitution and evidence from that search further lead to more evidence of wrong doing, that evidence as well would not be allowed to prosecute the defendant (Hall, 2014).