Analyzing the Forth Amendment

¶ … 4th Amendment's evolution and history, together with the "search and seizure" law.

4th Amendment Background

People's rights of being secure in personal effects, papers, houses and persons, against unreasonable seizures and searches, may not be breached, nor shall any warrants be issued, but in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should be seized, under the 4th Amendment. Like most fields in U.S. law, the English common law forms the principal basis of the 4th Amendment. Broadly, it was created for limiting governmental powers and their capacity of enforcing legal actions upon citizens (4th Amendment - constitution -- Laws.com). Amendment IV was implemented in immediate reaction to the historical writ of assistance's abuse. This writ was a sort of general governmental search warrant employed in the American Revolution's era. Amendment IV was created for limiting law enforcement powers when searching any American resident's personal property. It comes under the "Bill of Rights" - the first ten Constitutional Amendments together with the framework for explaining individual freedoms. These Amendments were put forward and directed to states during the first Congressional session of America's First Congress, under George Washington's presidency. They amendments were ratified later on 15th December, 1791. James Madison introduced these Amendments as a collection of statutory articles, which became effective as Amendments after the ratification process by 75% States.

Amendment IV constitutes the richest source of American constitutional litigation, especially with state application, following its incorporation via Amendment XIV's clause of "Due Process." It has a tremendously broad reach: of the several million arrests made per annum in the U.S., each one marks an Amendment IV event (Guide to the Constitution). Similarly, all searches made of private areas or individuals by public officials (who can be policemen, schoolteachers, airport security officers, crossing guards, or probation officers). Amendment IV is a constitutional custodian of individuals' privacy, when it gets diminished due to a governmental seizure or search. It safeguards citizens' legitimate privacy expectations. According to law, the term "legitimate" implies a real expectation of individual privacy, considered by society as "reasonable." When defining this phrase, Amendment IV's reasonableness clause has generated considerable litigation.

Constitutional Founders' attention to protecting citizens against unwarranted seizures and searches (and in mandating the producing of particularized warrants, according to the Amendment's succeeding Warrant Clause) stems from three famous cases of the 18th century, one from a colony and two from Britain. The two English cases, Wilkes v. Wood and Entick v. Carrington, involved pamphleteers in opposition to the government. They were apprehended, and their papers and books all seized (in the former case, all papers belonging to 49 friends of Mr. Wilkes'). Law enforcement used warrants that did not mention the places or names of suspects that could be searched. Seizing agents were sued by both defendants for trespass. The cases were decided in favor of Wilkes and Entick (Guide to the Constitution).

Law of Search and Seizure in England and Colonies/Formative Years of United States

Amendment VI forbids personal and privacy violations from unwarranted infringement by authorities of the State. The Founders were very clear on what must be deemed as "unreasonable," since they had a first-hand experience of it, under English rule. Before the American Revolution, the English claimed power to furnish writs of assistance enabling law enforcers to force their way into businesses and private homes for seeking proof of smuggling activities. These general search warrants empowered holders to search wherever they desired for smuggled items, and failed to specify which goods to look for or the place to look for them (Fourth Amendment: The History Behind "Unreasonable"). The writs had no expiry date and were regarded as an acceptable alternative to specific warrants. They could also be transferred, and were actually in contradiction to English legal tradition. Sir Edward Coke, the English Attorney General, maintained in the year 1604, in regard to the Semayne Case, that law possessed no unlimited authority of entering private dwellings.

Few Bill of Rights provisions have grown so directly from colonial experience as the 4th Amendment, which embodies safeguarding of citizens against 'writ of assistance' utilization. However, though the claim on liberty from unreasonable seizures and searches as a basic gained late expression among the Colonies and owing to experience, a rich British experience could also be found, on which to draw (Annotation 1 - Fourth Amendment -- FindLaw). A much-celebrated English tenet demonstrated in the 1603 Semayne Case was that everybody's home was their own castle. The civil case, Semayne v Gresham, of process execution, nonetheless acknowledged homeowners' rights of defending their home against illegal entry even by agents of the King, whilst concurrently recognizing the appropriate officials' authority of breaking and entering upon notice, for the purpose of making arrests or executing the Throne's process. Entick v. Carrington, one of 18th-century England's most famous cases, was one among a number of civil lawsuits against state authorities who had, using general warrants, raided numerous homes and private property seeking materials linked to John Wilkes' critical pamphlets that attacked the King and British governmental policies.

One colonial grievance against the government of Britain was with regard to warrants (or written authorization) utilized by officials responsible for trade, for searching colonists' personal property for the presence of smuggled items. These documents, or writs of assistance, accorded authorities broad powers to carry out seizures and searches of property on the mere grounds of general suspected unlawful acts. Introduced first in Henry VIII's (1513-47) reign, the English government maintained that these general search/seizure warrants, which failed to declare any specific wrongdoing, were essential for efficient enforcement, particularly against publications regarded as dangerous by the government (The Right to Protection against Illegal Search and Seizure). However, this practice wasn't popular and the controversies that coerced James II to step down from the British throne during the 1688 'Glorious Revolution' led the Parliament to start limiting its power. By the time Revolution began in America, general warrants were already seen to have declined markedly as a press-restraining tool. However, customs officials continued using them unrestrictedly. The British had no objection to broad powers for searching and seizing in the customs area, since these writs were seldom used to seek smuggled items in England. However, the Americans had a dramatically different experience with it.

Warrant laws originated in England and have a long history. Despite British citizens enjoying a right to defending their homes, agents of the law were authorized entry and execution/arrest of individuals in their homes when enforcing the orders of the King. Once the country established its American colonies, laws for searching and seizure were enacted owing to illegal goods' smuggling. British agents in colonies were equipped with lifelong writs (i.e., authoritative documents issued by the court) for searching property for unlawful contraband. Colonial communities were averse to the writs, and by the year 1760, opposition against the documents grew. A lawyer from Plymouth -- James Otis -- influenced Colonists to denounce the writs as they violated individual liberties (Miller). Following the American Revolutionary War, the nation became an independent state requiring a government. Framers established the Constitution, and some wished to delineate citizens' rights. Meanwhile, others considered this an unnecessary task. However, the memories of recent war and its causes influenced Americans to push for the ten Amendments, of which Amendment IV represents a natural freedom. This Constitutional right assured early American citizens that agents could not unreasonably search their houses any longer without proper cause and warrants. Adopted in the year 1791 into the U.S. Constitution, the ten Amendments became American law.

The customs inspectors of Britain, seeking to wipe out smuggling activities occurring in colonial America's Boston region, were provided with general search warrants (writs of assistance) allowing them to look anywhere where they believed they might find contraband. Furthermore, these writs allowed law enforcers to coerce private citizens into assisting them with search activities -- hence, the use of the term 'assistance'.) A few merchants in Boston, with James Otis as their representative, sued, and sought a ruling that these writs weren't valid. Though the merchants' efforts did not succeed, Otis's argument that strongly echoed a defense of citizen privacy became popular and reinforced American opposition to English rule. Later, John Adams said of this argument of Otis's that it gave birth to American Independence. Historians are generally agreed upon the statement that Amendment IV aimed at affirming Entick's and Wilkes' results, and at reversing Writs of Assistance Case's result. Three principles appear to follow from this (Search and Seizure - The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, And History, The Current Structure of Search and Seizure Law). Firstly, the government mustn't be authorized to search unless it has substantial justification -- a reason to feel the place they wish to search contains required evidence. This is where the infamous writs failed -- searches were authorized on the basis of mere unsupported suspicions. Secondly, searches, especially of private property/homes, mustn't go beyond justification. This was the issue in the Entick and Wilkes cases-- authorities didn't merely seek and seize forbidden writings, but seized every paper and book in the accused parties' homes. Thirdly, blanket warrants mustn't be utilized by the government for evading the first and second principles.

Smuggling, and not seditious libel, was mainly why protection against unwarranted seizures and searches was required in the British colonies. For enforcing revenue laws, British authorities employed writs of assistance -- general warrants that authorized bearer entry into any place, such as a private house, for seeking and seizing un-customed, illegal goods, and coercing subjects to aid them in their effort. Once issued, the writs continued to be in force all through the sovereign's lifetime, extending to a further period of six months. When, after George II's demise in the year 1760, authorities had to obtain new writs, James Otis led an opposing group and attacked these writs on liberal grounds, asserting the authorizing statutes' invalidity owing to their contradiction with British constitutionalism. Though Otis lost the battle and new writs were furnished and used, his claims were cited quite a lot in British colonies on their immediate subject as well as in connection with judicial review.

Evolution of Search and Seizure Laws in United States History

Amendment IV of the American Constitution maintains that citizens will be safeguarded in their houses, effects, persons, and papers, against any unreasonable search and seizure. Also, warrants shall not be issued, except in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should be seized. Amendment IV was approved as an original amendment -- one of ten such Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights -- on 15th December, 1791. The Amendments reflected many citizens' unwillingness to accept the national Constitution without any clauses that explicitly forbid federal authorities and organizations from carrying out certain actions (Lawrence -- Hurt, 2010). This Amendment, in specific, dealt with colonists' recent experiences with English soldiers, who frequently forced their way into colonists' houses without any warrant, or bearing one that was rather broadly or ambiguously worded, and confiscated whatever they desired.

Boston lawyer, James Otis had recently won a post as the Admiralty Court's Advocate General, meaning that he was, in essence, the British Crown's top lawyer in America. In this post, he had to defend governmental use of general writs. He was strongly opposed to such arbitrary property searches and goods seizures and ended up resigning his post. Instead, he took up the position of attorney for a merchant group, comprising of more than fifty merchants, who went to court against the government with the claim that these writs were unjust. Otis represented the group of merchants free of cost. His speech, which condemned the writs, broad search warrants, and other English policies, was so eloquent and compelling, that all the colonies heard of it and Otis was catapulted to a position of leadership amid the growing tide of cynicism towards England (4th Amendment). After the Constitution's writing was complete, all states held separate conventions for discussing its worth. A number of individuals opposed it, since they felt it afforded the government at the Center excessive power at States' and individual rights' expense. These critics of the Constitution, called anti-Federalists, were headed by George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, and others. Anti-Federalists' chief concern was that federal authorities would crush individual rights. In their view, the Constitution failed to explicitly state which individual rights were safeguarded from governmental interference. Some demanded the inclusion of the ten Amendments that would outline precisely which citizen rights were safeguarded.

The 4th Amendments is only a few sentences that form the spring of one among the most widespread bodies of legal theory, case law, and interpretation in the U.S. What their meaning is has been deliberated and explained by scholars and courts ever since their formulation. The Supreme Court has contracted, expanded, and redefined protections extended to citizens for more than two centuries -- this process continues even now. From their elementary application to law enforcement searches of homes or vehicles, to their present-day implications for electronic surveillance, thermal imaging, and wiretapping, the Amendment aims at protecting a right considered most important to American citizens -- the right of privacy (Lawrence -- Hurt, 2010). A motorist who is asked to stop for speeding, a college student who walks the streets on a Friday night carrying a bag filled with "books," a renter whose bedroom dresser is adorned with a bong, all exercise specific rights under Amendment IV. These rights check police action, irrespective of whether the person is aware of this fact. New Hampshire's Constitution, effective from 2nd June, 1784, has an article (Article 19) which provides, in words similar to those adopted by Amendment IV, what basic rules are applicable to seizures and searches conducted by state law enforcement officials. For more than 150 years, this Article formed the foundation of all of the state Supreme Court's decisions with regard to whether any particular search-and-seizure case was legally right, whether admissible evidence has been derived from it, what exceptions exist with regard to this regulation, and whether a proper warrant was issued. In that time, New Hampshire's Supreme Court held final authority over state search-and-seizure regulation. A notable dissimilarity was found between New Hampshire and federal search-and-seizure laws. Most people are aware that nobody can be convicted based on unlawfully seized evidence.

One among the first cases involving violation of 4th Amendment rights was the Boyd v. United States Supreme Court case of 1886. In this case, the 4th Amendment privacy right's significance was discussed and established for the first time. Before this case, police and other law enforcers were looking for and confiscating documents pertaining to fraudulent claim-related court cases, heard at local courts (Boyd v. United States, (1886). Boyd, the defendant in the case, was importing glass plates from England to the U.S. When importing goods into America, one needs to pay customs fees. Since Boyd desired not to pay this, he falsified import-related papers. Federal authorities, with a reasonable doubt that these documents of Boyd's were falsified to avoid paying customs fees, confiscated the plates from Boyd. The American Supreme Court held that actual entrance into the search premises did not necessarily constitute 'unreasonable' search under Amendment IV. As the court regarded Boyd's papers as private property, the papers' inspection by the District Attorney was an unconstitutional act (Boyd v. United States, 1886).

Nearly three decades later, in the year 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the privacy rights matter in the Weeks v. United States case. Weeks, the accused was transporting lottery tickets via mail. In those days, lottery came under illegal gambling, i.e., it was regarded as a crime (Weeks v. United States, 1914). The accused was apprehended without warrant when federal authorities from law enforcement discovered these activities of his. Simultaneously, other officers forced entry into Weeks' house without his consent or any search warrant. They seized his papers as incriminating proof against him and turned these over to be employed as evidence at trial to the United States Marshalls (Weeks v. United States, 1914). He was found guilty of lottery-ticket transportation via mail, but he appealed the case to the Supreme Court. In 1914, this principle, known as the Exclusionary Rule, became part of the federal government's jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, in this year, declared that evidence seized by directly violating defendants' constitutional rights can't be employed against him/her at trial. However, this ruling was only applicable to federal courts and officials (Lawrence -- Hurt, 2010). The law of New Hampshire State continued following the rule that all that matters in establishing admissibility of evidence is its relevance, as it did since the ratification of its constitution. How the evidence was procured wasn't important to trial courts? Thus, the state's court admitted even illegally obtained evidence seized by authorities, if it was relevant (except for coerced confessions).

The law enforced by Mapp for local police officers was essentially the very same law imposed during the 1920s on federal authorities enforcing Prohibition: probable search-and-arrest cause, together with search warrants, was necessary, unless there was a good reason for not bringing one. Probably due to a coincidence of timing -- crime rates hit the roof during the time the Mapp v. Ohio case was decided, and serious felonies tripled in number during the succeeding decade -- these laws appeared extremely burdensome for the increasingly busy officials of the local police departments. Growing crime also implied a growth in public hostility towards the American Supreme Court's attempts at criminal process regulation, which was apparently "handcuffing" prosecutors and the police.) Starting from 1968, the American Supreme Court made a move to relax those rules through two main strategies. Firstly, in the Terry v. Ohio case, it allowed police officers to make suspects stop on streets, and to frisk them, on grounds of reasonable suspected criminal activity, which is a lesser standard compared to the probable cause one (Search and Seizure - The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, And History, The Current Structure of Search and Seizure Law). Secondly, changes were made in the area of warrant requirement. The Court, in a sequence of decisions made between early 1970s and early 1990s, expanded or created several warrant requirement exceptions. For instance, automobile searches, searches that were incident to suspect detention, and inventory searches, were exempt (the latter involved inspecting and cataloging the belongings of a suspect being arrested). These exceptions when taken together implied that, while warrant requirement was applicable to searching apartments and houses, it was almost never applicable anywhere else. In case of seizures and searches outside of private homes, the police still had to adhere to reasonable suspicion or probable cause standards; however, they did not require any advance permission for searching. The stop-and-frisk principle's introduction and expansion, as well as warrant requirement's contraction were contentious; Amendment IV decisions during the seventies and eighties led to some heated Supreme Court arguments of never-before-seen intensity (Search and Seizure - The Fourth Amendment: Origins, Text, And History, The Current Structure of Search and Seizure Law). Fourth Amendment defenders, mainly Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, contended fervently that preserving the probable cause standard, rather than the less harsh reasonable suspicion one, as the basic search-and-seizure standard, was essential. Further, they made a case for general warrant requirement for providing extra checks on police force overreaching. However, these arguments lost, generally, and the law's structure which emerged in the early nineties is currently fairly stable. This structure's key characteristic will form the next section's subject matter. Search-and-seizure law's basic structure appears to be fairly stable, and great changes, at least for the short-term, are unlikely. In assessing this structure, focusing on a couple of issues will prove valuable. The first deals with interests protected by the search-and-seizure law, while the other deals with an interest which the law mostly ignores.

Arizona Law of Search and Confiscation

A person, according to the Law of Arizona and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of United States, can withhold from any unauthorized search or confiscation of their property or of themselves. (Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona).

The following essentials must exist in the warrant before it can be considered valid (Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona):

Credibility of cause

Issuance by Arizona

Under the State's name

Officer directed must be vested with the authority to make an arrest

Person/Place referred must be specified

Listed, the warrant is applicable only when the items required for the search are clearly stated

Date and time must be included in the warrant

In result of certain challenges to the constitutional rights and case laws over the past years, the rules of the Arizona search warrant have exceptions to them (Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona). This said, under certain circumstances, the police or investigators can be compelled to proceed with a search in the absence of search warrants

Following fall under a few valid exceptions (Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona):

An arrest is made with a necessary supplemental search

Chance of destruction of evidence before the issuance of a valid warrant

The search is made under the consent of the suspect

A delayed search, due to a pending warrant, could in effect cause danger to others or/and to the police officer.

One of the two following ways can allow both the police or government to obtain control of your property, usually vehicles, jewelry, cash or residence.

I. CAUSE OF CONFISCATION

A) If the property was used in criminal activity, then the government has rights to seize it. A valid example of such a basis of confiscation can be of a vehicle that was used to transport drugs. The Government also holds the right to prosecute anyone involved in a separate criminal prosecution. (Search and Seizures in Tucson -- Arizona Forfeiture Law).

B) The second basis for property confiscation by the government is over the charge of it being product of 'dirty money'. If the government is in fact able to prove that your asset or property was gained from an illegal activity, then it has the right to take power of it. Even if no criminal or illegal activity was performed in or with the utilization of the property, it can still be confiscated under the basis of being a product of profit from an illegal activity (Search and Seizures in Tucson -- Arizona Forfeiture Law).

CLAIM and/or PETITION AGAINST CONFISCATION

A response in writing within a strictly limited time period after the confiscation is essential to prevent you from losing your property. It is probable at times that, as result of insufficient evidence, the police may attempt to seize your property to bring a criminal to prosecution (Search and Seizures in Tucson -- Arizona Forfeiture Law). It is advised to always consult with a lawyer before making any claims or petitions; all statements made to the police can be used unfavorably in a criminal prosecution case if proven against you.

The police are always, first required to submit an official affidavit of support to a presiding Judge or Magistrate, if it is to obtain a valid search warrant. A search request made by the police must meet the requirements of issuing a search warrant; a clearly stated credible cause must be included (Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona). The specific items or person being searched for must be declared in the warrant. If the police see probable cause to conduct a DUI blood test, it must inform the judge of the refusal of the suspect to conduct a breath test first. It must also state the introductory tests such as Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST), and Preliminary or Portable Breath Test (PBT) have led the police to believe there is a valid need to conduct a DUI blood test in order to obtain Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) results. All police searches of a person or property, made without a valid issued search warrant, are considered invalid or unlawful and can be banned from being entered into evidence in a criminal case in a court of law. Only with the exception that the court decides the search was essential under certain circumstances can such a search be validated. No obtained evidence is valid for use against a suspect, if the court establishes the search to be illegal. An invalid search made without an officially issued warrant can be considered a violation of a person's constitutional rights.

In 2007, it was ruled by the Arizona Supreme Court that police did not have the right to customarily check the vehicles of any suspect arrested. In a 3-2 decision in State v. Gant, the court worded that the warrantless police search of Rodney Gant's vehicle, after he was arrested and handcuffed, was beyond a permissible search incident and hence, was "unjustifiable." Gant, from Tucson, was initially arrested and handcuffed on a pre-existing warrant from a previous encounter at the same address for driving on a suspended license Search and Seizure: Arizona Supreme Court Limits Vehicle Searches). Later upon search of Gant's vehicle, the police found drugs and convicted him on drug charges. The conviction was overturned and declared a violation of the Fourth Amendment right of the accused. The court overturned the conviction, calling the search a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The legal argument focused on the facts of the case suggesting a permissible search upon arrest or not. U.S. courts, under the Fourth Amendment, have recognized that searches incident to arrest are one of the few cases where the requirement for probable cause or a valid search warrant can be disregarded, to guarantee the safety and preservation of both the police officer and the evidence. However, the Arizona Supreme Court, did not recognize the search of Gant's vehicle a permissible search incident to arrest since Gant had already been arrested and handcuffed for a traffic warrant (Search and Seizure: Arizona Supreme Court Limits Vehicle Searches).

Upon Arizona law enforcement's disapproval regarding the ruling, many agencies suggested that they may ultimately find a way to was not happy about the ruling, and some agencies suggested they would find ways to evade it. Many briefs were filed to urge the court to consider supporting the conviction, mostly by the Police departments across the state working with the Arizona Law Enforcement Legal Advisors' Association and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police. These briefs hinted upon the future adoption of different arrest procedures. According to a fairly vocal judge, Justice Berch, supporting such a conviction implies threat to a citizen, one cannot presume to transgress the most basic of a citizen's rights in the constitution. It is the responsibility of the police to proceed with caution and conduct searches where such a situation does not have to arise. It is expected of the law enforcement to refrain from engaging in a conduct that poses unnecessary risks to either themselves or the public. (Search and Seizure: Arizona Supreme Court Limits Vehicle Searches).

After the New York vs. Belton case, the question rose whether the search of an arrestee or their vehicle without a warrant was permitted unless there was legit reason for police officer to consider threat to his safety and to the evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court then established a "bright-line" rule regarding this, whenever an officer legally blocks a vehicle's owner and conducts a search on incident; he must then be able to define a clearer situation where the officer could. This easily executed 'bright line' element, in the opinion of State of Arizona ("Arizona"), protects both the officer and the evidence, and it strikes an appropriate balance between protecting an individual's right to privacy and yet harboring the government's need to implement law effectively. Gant, however, debates that Belton must require the safety of an officer or evidence to be threatened in order to allow the search (without warrant) of an arrested person's car, within the framework of the Fourth Amendment.

According to Amici from the National Association of Police Organizations ("NAPO") and supporter of the National Association of Federal Defenders ("NAFD") backed Gant into a corner with solid facts. This raises two kinds of questions regarding concerns and implications on officer safety if such vehicle-search events resulting in an arrest are abandoned. Amicus argued that a decision for Gant, especially one that demanded analysis in the field, would deteriorate already perilous circumstances. Law enforcement is not an easy job; the hazardous nature of this profession hardly makes it a lucrative career option. According to statistics provided by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, in 2007 almost a 186 officers died in the line of duty. This figure has not remained consistent either, with an almost 28% increase in the death toll from year 2006, the peak of police mortalities in well over 18 years (excluding 2001). Moreover, according to stats provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation nearly 42% of assaults and fatalities of on-call officers happened mid-arrests or on traffic stops. However, the judgment in favor of the accused stood valid on the premise that the incidents of deaths had not increased in states where automatic searches had been banned. So it stood to prove that the fatalities were not increasing because of the automatic searches themselves.

Rule of Exclusion or the Law of Standing (Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)

Up until more than a 100 years since the Fourth Amendment was approved, it held little value for the criminal defendants because any evidence confiscation made by the police, even if it was warrantless or without sensibleness requirements would still be considered still acceptable during the defendant's prosecution. A dramatic change in the Fourth Amendment was handed down by The Supreme Court dramatically after it reached a decision in Weeks v. United States. Weeks involved appeal against the conviction of a defendant which was based on evidence that had been confiscated by a federal agent without a valid warrant or other constitutional validation (The Fourth Amendment and the "Exclusionary Rule"). Upon the reversal of the defendant's conviction, The Supreme Court thereby created what is known as the "exclusionary rule." This exclusionary rule was then made applicable to the states in the Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The exclusionary rule has been established to daunt police misconduct and to enable the courts to eliminate any evidence yielded through the infringement of constitutional provision from the trial. Under the exclusionary rule, a defendant can bring up a pre-trial motion and question the admissibility of certain evidence in order to suppress it. If the evidence is still allowed to be presented by the court and the jury votes to convict the defendant, the defendant then has the right to challenge If the court allows the evidence to be introduced at trial and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the legitimacy of the trial court's decision in denying the defendant's appeal to suppress evidence. Upon the success of the defendant appeal, there will still be a retrial because under the ruling of the, the Supreme Court double jeopardy principles do not affect the defendant's retrial because the trial court's error was not in question of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Nonetheless, it would be quite improbable for the defendant to be convicted in the second trial if the suppressed evidence suppressed under the exclusionary rule was of significant importance to the prosecution.

The law of exclusion comprises of a very specific doctrine that prevents law enforcement from misuse of their authority and poaching a civilian's civil rights. It is also regarded as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine because it literally makes all evidence gained illegally or by any means that might have encroached upon an arrestee's civil liberties applicable under the exclusionary rule and cannot be entered into a court of law against the accused. According to this law any illegal arrests, irrational searches, or forced confessions during police interrogations cannot be permitted into evidence during a trial. Under the spirit of the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," proof is also omitted from trial if it was gathered due to another piece of evidence uncovered illegally. It does not how incriminating a piece of evidence might be, if it is collected based on an irrational or forcible interrogation or search, it will be deemed invalid by any court of law.

The entire purpose of the addition of the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine" as a daughter of the exclusion law was to prevent law enforcement from crossing that important line. No one should have the authority to conduct a vigilante style system of justice, no matter how sure they are of their perpetrator's guilt. This law was founded to prevent law officers from getting carried away and in a way it protects the liberties of the public and protects law officers from themselves as well. While it deters them from violating rights via unreasonable search and seizure operations, it is essential to remember that in severe cases, a very true probable cause can be established for such a search, if a civilian's life is at stake or multiple threats to life and property can later be proved in the situation. The name of the doctrine is considered a metaphor' the poisonous tree is what you would call accessible evidence, but one that is seized or gathered illegally making it, poisonous (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - lawbrain.com).