Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Exclusionary Rule excludes tainted evidence from some criminal proceedings, the rationale being protection of 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights by control of law enforcement behavior. However, there are a number of exceptions to the Rule for various reasons, as well as alternative remedies for law enforcement's unconstitutional actions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court created the Exclusionary Rule for several well-founded reasons.
Analysis of the Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule, Along With any Exceptions
The Exclusionary Rule is a rule of evidence excluding evidence from criminal proceedings when that evidence is collected in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by law enforcement, Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights against self-incrimination, and/or Sixth Amendment Constitutional right to legal counsel (Cammack, 2013, p. 3) . Evidence obtained by law enforcement in violation of these Amendments is unconstitutional and cannot be used against the Defendant. In addition, other evidence obtained through that unconstitutionally obtained evidence is also excluded because it is "the fruit of the poisonous tree" (Cammack, 2013, p. 12). The main rationale for this rule, which was created by courts interpreting Constitutional protections, is the protection of basic Constitutional rights set forth in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments by controlling the conduct of law enforcement (Cammack, 2013, p. 4). This rule is supposed to discourage law enforcement from acting unconstitutionally to obtain evidence because that evidence will not help make a case against a defendant; no matter how convincing the evidence, it is not allowed because of law enforcement's unconstitutional actions.
There are several exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. One is the "Good Faith Exception" (Cammack, 2013, p. 8). If law enforcement was acting in good faith, believing that it was acting Constitutionally,...
19). A second exception exists if there was an independent, "untainted" source for the same evidence and that other source played a significant role in obtaining the evidence (Cammack, 2013, p. 15). A third exception exists for "inevitable discovery" if the evidence would have been discovered whether or not there was a violation of Constitutional rights (Cammack, 2013, p. 16). A fourth exception is the use for impeachment on cross examination: if a person -- even the defendant -- testifies in a proceeding, the otherwise excluded evidence may be used to impeach him/her (Cammack, 2013, p. 23). A fifth exception exists for identifying the defendant, if a witness could identify the defendant for reasons other than the tainted evidence (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005). A sixth exception exists for Grand Jury proceedings, where evidence otherwise excluded by the Exclusionary Rule may be presented to the Grand Jury (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005). A seventh exception exists for "attenuation" when something occurs between the unconstitutional action and obtaining the evidence, making the connection between the two events so weak that the evidence becomes "untainted" (Cammack, 2013, p. 17). An eighth exception exists if the defendant consents to the act that leads to the evidence's discovery (Cammack, 2013, p. 8).
b. The Benefits of the Exclusionary Rule
The Exclusionary Rule provides several benefits. One benefit is that it discourages law enforcement from violating the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. A second benefit is that it strengthens and shows our society's commitment to law in that even law enforcement is not above the law and in that we would rather let a defendant go than let him/her be convicted by unconstitutional means. A third benefit is that it protects the integrity of our justice system, in that it shows our justice system will not be a party to constitutional…
Works Cited
Cammack, M.E. (2013). The United States: The rise and fall of the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule. In S.C. Thaman, Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law (pp. 3-32). New York: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Justia. (n.d.). Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from law.justia.com Web site: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/30-exclusionary-rule.html
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. (2005). Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved April 23, 2013 from www.encyclopedia.com Web site: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Exclusionary_Rule.aspx#2
The U.S., however, is the only industrial democracy, common law or otherwise, in which courts must throw out tainted evidence in criminal trials. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing and expanding on this principle have collectively come to be known as the "exclusionary rule." Although the rule had its origins in arguments about the morality of obtaining a conviction while relying on improperly obtained evidence, its primary modern justification
For example, one provision of the Patriot Act "permitted law enforcement to obtain access to tapping stored voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant," even though "obtaining the former requires a much lower evidentiary showing" and wiretapping more accurately seems to mirror surveillance technology, rather than single-incident searches of the premises for specific items (Fourth amendment, 2009, Wex Law). Another provision of the Patriot
An exception to this is a search conducted by officer acting in objective "good faith" and wit the inclusion of a warrant obtained on the basis of probable cause. A further provision holds that, if a jury has reasonable reason to believe that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Article, it should disregard the evidence obtained. The Texas Penal Code works in tandem with the exclusionary rule, in
Exclusionary rule exists to protect the rights of citizens to due process when accused or suspected of criminal activities. There are therefore certain constitutional specifications according to which incriminating information can be seized. Without adhering to these specifications, seized items cannot be allowed as evidence against an accused person in a criminal trial. There are, however, certain exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including fleeing suspects and the good faith exception. In
The Court cited language from Boyd in support of its proposition. The Boyd Court had held that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments "apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but
Exclusionary Rule Criminal Justice The Exclusionary Rule is a significant and difficult to consider and discuss. The Exclusionary Rule is a rule that holds law enforcement accountable to the legal system and the justice system. The Exclusionary Rule essentially mandates that all evidence to be permissible in a court of law must be obtained legally and through actions of relevant law enforcement agencies lawfully. This rule may seem like it is