Exclusionary Rule Pros And Cons

416 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Explain the exclusionary rule

My thoughts/opinions regarding the exclusionary rule very much align with my previous post concerning constitutional rights of persons v. obtaining a conviction (favor towards protecting/preserving constitutional rights). With that said, I am an advocate of the exclusionary rule. I feel that it’s implementation is a very important component of our judicial procedures, and one that is not necessarily in need of repeal. I also believe that the exclusionary rule is a fundamental element in ensuring the preservation of one’s constitutional rights in that the rule serves to deter misconduct of law enforcement officials and judicial agents by requiring them to know the laws of conducting proper searches and seizures, interrogation techniques/tactics, …show more content…

This doctrine allows a court to exclude any evidence that was obtained legally/illegally, in addition to any evidence that is found thereafter (any additional evidence derived from the initial illegal search/seizure). An example of such would be as follows:

A law enforcement officer unlawfully enters a home (without search warrant) on the basis of mere suspicion that the resident is involved in illegal activities. Upon entering the residence, the officer discovers illegal narcotics in addition to a list of dealers - Any other evidence or persons seized (legally or illegally) as result of evidence/contraband found within the home, falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and may be inadmissible in court.

In summary, I feel that the exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine should remain in place although (in some instances) it may allow a criminal to walk free. I firmly believe that the current procedural laws in place give law enforcement officials enough resources and legal avenues to act and to obtain the evidence that they seek; it is because of this fact, that I believe that a repeal of the law is unnecessary and that implementation in the law is

Show More
Related

  • Miranda V. Arizona Case: Ernesto Miranda's Law

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Schmerber V. California Case Analysis

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Illinois vs Wardlow

    1426 Words  | 3 Pages

    At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...

    Read More

  • Mapp v. Ohio Fourth Amendment Case

    1291 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Mapp v. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment

    762 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Against Consent Searches

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    The logic used by the Court in order to justify their conclusion is fraught with weak reasoning and dangerous interpretations of the Constitution. It violates the precedent set in Miranda and seems tainted with a desire to justify consent searches at any cost. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is a decidedly pro-order case because it qualifies another excuse police can raise to search a citizen, but it is also dangerous because it shows that the Court is not the unbiased referee between liberty and democracy that it should be.

    Read More

  • Mapp V. Ohio Essay

    979 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Exclusionary Rule

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    In conclusion you will find that the Exclusionary Rule is actually nowhere in the Constitution, it was merely a judicial structure to make sure the Fourth Amendment was imposed. Even though there are a few exceptions to the rule, they really don’t over step the rule very much. Even though many criminals are released because of evidence obtained illegally, how can we continue to try and discourage police wrongdoing and also keep dangerous criminals off the streets?

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule: How, When, and Why Was it Established?

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem illegitimate- even anti-American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule.

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Judge Leval used a weighing method suggested by the sentencing commission rather than the method required by Congress. The different method used did not trigger the mandatory sentence whereas the congressional method would have. Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that requires police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they can 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 by 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 one is interrogated by the police.

    Read More

  • The Criminal Trial Process

    1065 Words  | 3 Pages

    The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of

    Read More

  • Trial Options and the Defendant's Rights

    1001 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Essay On Miranda V Arizona

    1071 Words  | 3 Pages

    Arizona is a case that many people believed that it should have been ruled the other way. Me, on the other hand, I believe that even though a person is being criminalized it does not mean that law officials should take advantage of them. The way that this court was ruled has been working exceptionally well for over the past fifty years, so I believe it proves that the reinterpretation of the law was the best option. A person can potentially at one point be accused of something that they did not do, and under pressure in an interrogation he or she could be manipulated into confessing something they did not do. Sometimes a person can feel like their is no other way, but the solution they chose at the end, or they can be scared that it can end up a lot worse if they do not confess at the given time. If I was a justice I would probably be closer to Justice Clark because he agreed with both sides of the argument. I, on the contrary, would have been leaning towards the concurrence side instead of the dissent. I agree that future criminals could use the reinterpretation of the fifth amendment to their own benefit, but I also see it that the law officials use their position in society to their advantage as well. It would only be fair to the average American that can at one moment be in this predicament to be told their rights before they can incriminate themselves, and for them to be allowed settle the case the right and fair way, with a lawyer by their

    Read More

  • What Are The Pros And Cons Of The Three Strikes Law

    688 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Three Strike law has proposed problems for many years and it has often been labeled as cruel and usual punishment by many Americans and for those outside the country. The cons far outweigh the pros and it is also arguably unfair punishment depending on each situation. Most importantly, the punishment doesn't always fit the severity of the crime. The law was put in place to deter people from repeating crimes serious crimes, but past statistics prove that the three strikes law is not the solution to such a problem. It is important to fully address the problems that associate with the three strikes law.

    Read More

  • Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Careers

    2459 Words  | 5 Pages

    Justice is inevitable and controversial when defining it in terms of law enforcement. Law enforcement is challenged in every possible way, as the career is one of many judgmental decisions and controversial actions. Laws have been implemented to enact justice and law enforcement is responsible for upholding the laws for the betterment of all individuals in the criminal justice system. Justice is defined as being fair and just and upholding the law in accordance to high standards through moral rightness and sound reason for the safety of law enforcement and society. While pursuing my criminal justice degree at the University of Phoenix, justice is a topic that has arisen constantly and defined differently by numerous individuals.

    Read More

More about Exclusionary Rule Pros And Cons

Open Document