Exclusionary Rule a Casual Observer

¶ … Exclusionary Rule

A casual observer might believe that any "rule" that involves exclusion is inappropriate in a pluralistic and free society and might even smack of elitism. The exclusionary rule, though, is actually an extension of the Bill of Rights and provides U.S. citizens with some fundamental protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. For instance, according to Black's Law Dictionary (1991), the exclusionary rule "commands that where evidence has obtained in violation of the search and seizure protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the illegally obtained evidence cannot be used at the trial of the defendant" (p. 564). Furthermore, pursuant to the equal protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the exclusionary rule is valid in all of the several states. In this regard, Black's adds that, "Under this rule, evidence that is obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure is excluded from admissibility under the 4th Amendment and this rule has been held to be applicable to the states" (p. 564).

Critics of the exclusionary rule might argue that when law enforcement officials serendipitously discover illegal activities or contraband while in the performance of their duties, such evidence should be allowed to be brought to bear against the perpetrators. For example, law enforcement officials who have obtained a lawful wire tap for a specific purpose such as possible violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act may discover that the alleged defendant is also engaging in domestic violence. While it may appear reasonable to suggest that whatever information is gleaned through the use of such wire tap should be admissible as evidence of a criminal act, the exclusionary rule protects people from such actions by law enforcement because there were no indications that the suspect involved was beating his wife (or husband) and any information obtained in this fashion cannot be used as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Because law enforcement resources by definition are scarce and no right-thinking judge is going to want to see law enforcement resources wasted because of a technicality, even if it is the Bill of Rights, the exclusionary rule has been the source of a great deal of controversy. According to Dripps (2001), "Few debates in American law are as sustained, or as bitter, as the debate over the exclusionary rule. Critics have attacked the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence for compromising the pursuit of truth in adjudication, for exceeding the constitutional authority of the judiciary, and for fostering police perjury and judicial hypocrisy" (p. 1). Proponents of the exclusionary rule maintain that there exists a fundamental need for some type of protections against constitutional violations, and argue that the exclusionary rules provide a superior alternative to reliance on damage actions that result from such violations (Dripps, 2001). Because there are some exceptions, such as the good faith exception, to the exclusionary rule, there appears to be enough latitude in this law to make its continued enforcement relevant and appropriate. Absent the protections afforded by the exclusionary rule, it is conceivable that law enforcement authorities could use virtually any pretext to gain entry to a suspect's home or vehicle and use whatever was discovered against them in a court of law. As Jackson (1996) emphasizes, "The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter future Fourth Amendment violations by police officers" (p. 1201). This is not to say, of course, that all police officers will seek to use unconstitutional tactics to their advantage, but it is to say that the Constitution and by extension, the exclusionary rule, are intended to afford ordinary citizens against such tactics in case they are used.