Before going into explaining the exceptions to the exclusionary rule, let’s get a better understanding on what the exclusionary rule is. The Exclusionary Rule is meant to deter any illegal police conduct and to not be punished for any errors that are made during the process of doing their work. It’s also stated that the exclusionary rule also bars the admission of any evidence obtained by the government which is in violation of the constitution (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Such rule mostly involves cases of search and seizure, arrests, interrogations and stop-and-frisk violations (Lyman, pg. 88). With that being said, the rule is to make sure that everything is clear cut when it comes to any arrest and going to trial. One does …show more content…
not want their work to eventually be thrown out due to improper seizures of any evidence or an improper arrest made against a suspect. Now that I’ve explain that briefly, let’s go into the first exception and how it impacts police work, their behavior and the benefits of having the exception whether it’s positive or negative. The Good-Faith Exception was decided in the case of the United States v.
Leon. This case or exception came into play when the defendant (Alberto Leon) argued that the search in which the police performed in his home was illegal because the tip and the surveillance video being used was not sufficient enough to create a probable cause for a search warrant and due to such search the warrant was invalid and all evidence collected needed to be dismissed based on the exclusionary rule (Casebriefs, 2015). With that being said and his defense the judge allowed the evidence to be admitted into trial because he felt that the police officers was acting in good faith of the exclusionary rule and because of that it doesn’t have a deterrent effect and they followed the rules at the best of their knowledge (Legal Information Institute, n.d). This exception is used at a trial when evidence is collected in an agreeance of an unlawful search and seizure but if the officer had reasonable belief that they were acting to the lawful rule of a search warrant, the illegal seizer evidence will be considered admissible. According to the courts they will only exclude evidence …show more content…
if: 1. The police was deceptive in requesting the affidavit 2. The warrant was faulty on its face whereas it couldn’t be served and 3. The magistrate was nonbiased to the warrant being requested. I think as long as the police officers are acting in good-faith with no ill will and the magistrate is neutral about the warrant then the case could move forward and such exception works in the officers favor but at the same time if an officer have been trying to bust a drug deal for years and obtain a warrant under false pretense such discovery will be thrown out and the criminal activity they were seeking will be gone to waste due to double jeopardy of the criminal.
This particular exception enforces police officers to follow the rules in obtaining a warrant and to make sure all the i’s are dotted and t’s are cross. There’s no room for anyone acting illegal in regards to the good faith exception. The benefits one may experience in the criminal investigations would be that changes the law but some may think that isn’t a benefit when it comes to investigating a crime but it assures that using the good faith exception what was once questioned to be unlawful to be admissible in court will be used as evidence(Kerr,n.d). The next listed Exception is The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine which developed in the early 1980s in a case of Nix v. Williams. Whereas a 10 year old girl was murdered by Williams (Robert) in which Williams was arrested and arraigned in Davenport, Iowa. In the process of traveling back to Des Moines, Iowa the officers insisted that they would not question the suspect but in the time of the drive one of the officers began to hold a general conversation with
Williams, which lead to him making incriminating statements and directing them to the girl’s body. The area in which Williams stated the body was at; there was an ongoing volunteer search. During his first trial, the court rule that his admission was in violation of his 6th Amendment right but during a second trial the testimony relating to the condition and location of the girl’s body was admitted and Williams was convicted (Justia, 2015). This exception allows honest errors. Whereas the officer was simply having a conversation with the suspect; not once did he question him on the little girl’s where about, he just volunteered that information. If he didn’t make the incriminating statement her body would’ve been found due to the fact that they were in the process of searching that area anyway. With that being said, in order for the courts to allow such evidence, they require the prosecutor to show that the police would’ve discovered the evidence during their search, which taken they were searching the area, they would’ve. Along with showing that they would’ve found the evidence they would neither be put in a better position if there was no illegality or in a worse position due to an error or misconduct the police behaved in earlier on in the investigation. The government isn’t required to prove that the officers acted in bad faith. The positive impact this may have on a case is, as stated in this particular trial, taken that they were doing a volunteer search in the area prior Williams admitting and giving the location of her body, it was easily proven that they would’ve found her but on the other hand if they were in the process of searching elsewhere then he could’ve easily gotten off or even charged with a lesser charge and lastly we have the Computer Errors Exception; such exception also work in the officers defense because as with any job, one shouldn’t be held accountable for someone’s error and everyone know, there are numerous computer errors, it’s just the responsibility of whoever’s running that particular program to proof to make sure everything is in order. In the case of Arizona v. Evans because the officers thought the individuals had an active arrest warrant during their traffic stop, they felt they were acting in good faith in searching the vehicle. In the process of searching Evans car they found drugs, which is an automatically cause for an arrest. With that being said if an officer see that they have an active warrant of course they would search the vehicle to make sure there isn’t anything present that can and have been used during a crime. There’s no time to further investigate such information and they are solely relying on what’s in the system. This exception impacts the criminal investigation where someone could be unlawfully arrested and the manner of an investigation and causes such evidence inadmissible. . It just shows that those working in the office need to be more precise in inputting information. This particular exception makes it illegal to obtain evidence and be admissible in federal courts since 1914 but one feel that it helps eliminate the misconduct of police and protect the individual’s right. With all of the rules one might feel the law or Constitution may have that protects the rights of individuals but there is also exception to those rules to protect law enforcement. With the good faith exception, as long as one may feel they are acting in good faith, whatever evidence obtain during their search is protected to be admissible as well as obtaining information without directly questioning a suspect before their Miranda rights are read and knowingly searching the area to an officer making an honest mistake due to an computer error. Each exception seems to benefit the arresting officer and the criminal investigator as long as their actions are not to illegally obtain evidence and try to get over the justice system.
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
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
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 ,
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door and identified himself. He told police that the owner of the house was not home but was coming back later that evening. Police later discovered that Rodney Gant had a warrant for his arrest for driving with a suspended license. The officers came back to the home later that evening and arrested two individuals. After both individuals were handcuffed and placed in the back of patrol cars, Gant pulled up at the house driving a vehicle. When he stepped out of his car, he was arrested for driving with a suspended license. After Gant was handcuffed and placed in the back of a third patrol car, officers proceeded to search Gant’s car. During their search they found a gun in the car and a bag of cocaine in a jacket pocket laying on the backseat of the car Gant was driving. Gant was charged with possession of the cocaine. He fought to have the evidence found in his car suppressed at trial because, he claimed, the search of his car had been unreasonable. Gant’s motion was denied and Gant was convicted...
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
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
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.