More handpicked essays just for you.
Proponent of the exclusionary rule
Proponent of the exclusionary rule
When was the exclusionary rule created
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
According to the United States constitution, The Exclusionary Rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidences in a criminal trial. For example “Boyd v US 1886” “An act to amend the customs revenue laws,” &c., “which section authorizes a court of the United States, in revenue cases, on motion of the government attorney, to require the defendant or claimant to produce in court his private books, invoice and papers, or else the allegations of the attorney to be taken as confessed: Held, to be unconstitutional and void a applied to suits for penalties or to establish a forfeiture of the party’s goods, as being repugnant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.(116 US 616 Scotus)” The main purpose of this rule was to ensure police do not conduct an excessive amount of unlawful searches in order to obtain evidence for a case. It was an important rule that was put into effect in the early 1900s to protect individual’s rights to a fair trial. …show more content…
The Exclusionary rule has both pros and cons to it.
The pros are it helps ensure fair trials. A fair trial is the main focus on the Exclusionary rule is applied today. It is not just for the purpose of a conviction under the officer’s belt. It also controls law enforcement misconduct. It helps avoid the unlawful searching due to the exclusionary rule it is dropped the unlawful searches drastically. Another positive is that it helps the defendant out. If the evidence has been obtained illegally, the exclusionary ruled is extremely beneficial to the defendants. The exclusionary rule helps protect the innocent. For example, it can avoid somebody being framed them or pin a crime on somebody. The exclusionary rule will have a direct impact on the case against the innocent
person. The exclusionary rule can make or break a court case. If the evidence is invalid, then the case is irrelevant to the defendant. The purpose of evidence is to give the procuscuter the lean way to put the defendant in the wrong of the crime that he\she is accused of. Understanding the rule prevents the law enforcement to illegally contain evidence without a warrant or probable cause to search one’s belongings. This rule saved a lot of innocent people from facing hard time for a crime that they didn’t commit. In my conclusion, understanding how the criminal justice system can be benifitual to people that get framed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Situations that occur with people being wrongfully accused and planted illegal evidence on a person or wrongfully search a person the exclusionary rule plays a huge role in getting the person out of a critical circumstance.
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 ,
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
United States, the Court concluded that in order to protect the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, illegally seized evidence must be excluded in federal trials” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 215). The key phrase in this statement is “federal trials” because this indicates that the state courts did not have to adopt the exclusionary rule, and could still admit illegally seized evidence in their state-level court systems if they so pleased it. Unfortunately for Mapp’s, the state of Ohio did not adopt the exclusionary rule until later, which leads to me her arguments. Mapp’s argued that any evidence that is obtained illegally should be inadmissible in court. She further argued that the exclusionary rule or the Fourth Amendment rights should apply to all criminal prosecutions, including state
In the case of Illinois vs. Wardlow, many factors contributed to Wardlow’s arrest. Starting with the facts of the case, on September 9, 1995 Sam Wardlow fled after seeing police vehicles covering an area in Chicago where it was known to have high drug trafficking. Two police officers spotted Wardlow, Officers Nolan and Officer Harvey, and once Officer Nolan caught up with Mr. Wardlow, Officer Nolan proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of only the outer layer of clothing, or a “Terry Stop.” Officer Nolan was well aware that in this area, there was almost always a weapon on a suspect that was involved with some type of drug transaction. After conducting the frisk, Officer Nolan squeezed the opaque colored bag that Mr. Wardlow was carrying. He noticed that the object inside of the bag felt like a hard and heavy object which he believed could potentially be a gun. After looking inside the bag, Officer Nolan found a weapon inside, a .38 caliber handgun to be exact. On the spot, Officer Nolan and Officer Harvey arrested Mr. Wardlow.
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.
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search
This leads explanations leads to the conclusion that there are implications of being part of the criminal justice system. The exclusionary rule along with other justice terms such as the fruit of the poisoned tree force police and other law enforcement members to obtain evidence properly and in respect to the Due process. According to the textbook Criminal Justice in Action, any arrest or seizure is unreasonable unless is supported by probable cause (Gaines, 2011). More than probable cause, police officers should rely on facts and circumstances that will lead them to arrest the individual accordingly.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
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.
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Title IX is a federal law that states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Summing that up, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in education. Title IX has banned sex discrimination in schools since 1972. Title IX is best known for parceling obstacles in sports for women and girls, it also ameliorates for girls to pursue math and science, requires fair treatment for pregnant and parenting students, and protects students from bullying and sexual harassment, among other things. Title IX applies to all educational institutions. Both public and private,
Pros and Cons of the Equal Rights Amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment began its earliest discussions in 1920. These discussions took place immediately after two-thirds of the states approved women's suffrage. The nineteenth century was intertwined with several feminist movements such as abortion, temperance, birth control and equality.
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
Laws and procedures are the most common basis for officers choosing not to allow offenders to remain free based on their discretion, a study by Mendias and Kehoe (2006) has found. The study found that laws or responsibilities were the main reason for a decision to suspend discretion in eighty-two percent of cases involving an arrest. The study also found that keeping the peace and procedural implications were the primary justifications for ex...
...’ 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.