More handpicked essays just for you.
How many cases have used the exclusionary rule
How should the exclusionary rule be evaluated
Arguments for and against the exclusionary rule
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In a gist, the exclusionary rule prohibits the presentation of evidence that is illegally or unlawfully acquired. If proof was obtained in violation of the Constitution, a criminal defendant can strike it as admissible. Because the constitutional exclusionary rule covers a lot of aspects, it is often misleading. For example, a witness may be prohibited from testifying if he or she was not disclosed before the trial. On the other hand, a minor traffic violation that led to the discovery of cocaine would render the search illegal if the defendant did not consent to it or that the police did not have probable cause to search for illegal drugs in the car. Situations like these made the exclusionary rule quite controversial. List of pros of exclusionary rule Upholds the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment protects you from unnecessary search …show more content…
But because of the attention paid by the government on your case, people are likely to think the worst of you. Until there is legal proof presented, however, you will be innocent until proven guilty. This again shifts the burden of proof to the government because of the exclusionary rule. Stops people from being charged of any crime The elements surrounding the inclusionary rule demands that prosecutors must work hard to percent a stronger overall case. this makes merely accusing someone insufficient reason to put them in jail. Innocent people in particular will be protected by this rule. List of cons of the exclusionary rule Unconstitutional to a certain extent The exclusionary rule may be a great tool to boost the Fourth Amendment faith was never mentioned in the Constitution either explicitly or implicitly. In fact, it is often considered as a remedy to policing methods that the court created. This makes it unconstitutional, resulting in people questioning its effectiveness and calling for its removal from court
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 ,
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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
In Cooper’s case, the court held that the exclusionary rules are an “essential part” of the Fourth Amendment, and that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which states that “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, meaning that the federal exclusionary rule applies to the states. The exclusionary that is applied in the Federal courts should also be applied in State court
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution provides protection to the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule was a judicial precedence that made evidence obtained in violation of the US Constitution inadmissible in federal, state and local courts. Its primary focus being to discourage illegal or inappropriate law enforcement investigation practices. This ruling applies not only to evidence obtained directly from an illegal search or seizure, but also branches out to cover evidence indirectly obtained known as fruit of the poisonous tree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine also referred to as the derivative evidence rule, prohibits submission of evidence that has been legally acquired through the
In the following paper, I will argue that the loopholes in the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution unfairly target people of color, resulting in higher incarceration rates. In Chapter 2 of the New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander discusses the 4th amendment’s evolution within the court system. Initially, consent searches were used to incriminate people without having enough evidence to stop a person. During consent searches, officers simply ask for consent to search the person and/or their property. This seems rather just if the person has an understanding that they are allowed to deny the officer the privileges of searching; however, this is not the case for most people as they believe that one must comply with an officer’s request. Through the evolution of the 4th amendment within
...hed the car in places where contraband would not normally be found, but it had no relation to the discovery of the cocaine. The weapons found at the ranch are admissible due to the fact the agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons. The Lamborghini is not admissible due to the fact it was not covered by the warrant and the VID# was not in plain sight of the Agent doing the search. The statement made about trying to find Snow White would not be admissible in court because Agent Smith arrested Doe and started asking him questions about Doe's crime before Doe was read his Miranda Rights. Lastly, the statement Doe made about his supplier would be admissible in court because Doe was read his Miranda Rights and acknowledged his understanding of the rights and made a voluntary confession afterwards with no coercion on the part of the Agents involved.
The Fourth Amendment came almost directly from experience of the colonials. But it wasn’t introduced only as a fundamental right, but also as a major part of the English ideals as well. In England, ''Everyman's house is his castle'' was an honored phrase, enforcing the idea that it is not only is it a law, but a right that cannot be delegated by any government idea. There are two major cases where this idea was tried. Semayne’s Case and Entick v. Carrington.
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
Walsh, James, and Dan Browning. "Presumed Guilty Until Proved Innocent." Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). 23 Jul 2000: A1+. SIRS Issues Researcher.
The way the police officer Martin McFadden had ignored the fourth amendment in order to catch John W. Terry & Chilton that was planning to rob a store and so the officer had stop and frisk the two suspect in which McFadden had found a concealed weapon which was a .38 caliber pistol and had two of the gun on them and so that they were charged by that ignoring the fourth amendment to find that the two were going to rob the place but also McFadden had frisked a person. Terry sentenced to 3 years, Chilton had served 13 months.
...’ 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.