Exclusionary rule in criminal procedure and evidence

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, then the evidence may be admissible (Cammack, 2013, p. 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 violations in order to obtain convictions. A fourth benefit is perhaps the most obvious: it protects individual Constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures," under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination and under the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel.

c. A List of the Possible Remedies when the Police Violate a Defendant's Constitutional Rights

There are several possible remedies when police violate a Defendant's Constitutional rights. As stated above, the evidence is excluded from most criminal proceedings, except under specific exceptions. Secondly, the individual could bring a civil suit against the law enforcement individual(s) and/or their supervisors (Cammack, 2013, p. 8), for common law tort, under federal civil rights statutes, or both (Justia, n.d.). Those actions could be brought for money damages and/or for additional relief, such as an injunction stopping law enforcement from committing those unconstitutional acts (Justia, n.d.). Third, a criminal action could be brought against the law enforcement individuals who acted unconstitutionally (Justia, n.d.). Fourth, there could be a departmental disciplinary action against the law enforcement individuals who acted unconstitutionally (Justia, n.d.), which could punish or even remove the offending law enforcement individuals.

d. Reasons why the Supreme Court Chose the Exclusionary Rule

The Supreme Court chose the Exclusionary Rule for several reasons beyond the obvious reason of protecting constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. First, it already had some basis in British law; therefore, it was not a radical new idea but had legal history on its side (Cammack, 2013, p. 337). Secondly, our country's own common law already excluded some illegally obtained evidence, both federally and in some state courts (Cammack, 2013, p. 4). Third, the alternate remedies listed above are rare and not always practicable: criminal prosecuting of law enforcement violating Constitutional rights is rare; individuals who could bring civil suits are very often "disreputable" people who would not succeed in civil suits; departmental disciplinary actions are rare (Justia, n.d.). Consequently, the Supreme Court decided that the most effective way of dealing with these violations of Constitutional rights was the exclusion of the tainted evidence from most criminal proceedings.