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 case of a fleeing suspect for example, pursuit of a suspect may cause the person to enter a residence in order to avoid arrest, since the usual rule is that evidence acquired without a warrant cannot be submitted in a court of law. However, an officer in pursuit of such a suspect may enter the residence without a search warrant to prevent the suspect from destroying or discarding the evidence. One example of this is flushing drugs down a toilet.
An emergency search can also be conducted without a police warrant to promote public safety. A fleeing subject, for example, might be dangerous in cases such as wielding a weapon. A suspect with a gun, for example, could endanger the lives of those in the immediate vicinity.
Vehicles may also be included in this rule. If a police officer has probable cause to search a motor vehicle, he or she is allowed to do this without a warrant. The reason behind this is that vehicles can...
If the police officer therefore has probable cause that the suspect has something incriminating in the vehicle, he or she should be able to investigate.
An example of this could be drugs that are clearly evident in the vehicle, a person who is suspected to be deceased, or kidnap victims. In any of these cases, the law would not be able to fulfil its purpose if the suspect is allowed to flee the scene.
The good-faith exception, on the other hand, refers to officers who do have a warrant for searching a residence. When operating under the good faith that the warrant is valid, these officers are allowed to search the premises. If evidence is found to incriminate a suspect, this evidence can be admissible, even if the warrant later proves to be invalid according to the requirements of the law. There may, for example, be a mistake in the format when applying for the warrant.
If an officer used such a warrant under the honest impression that it was valid, the evidence can be used in a court of law. This includes any contraband or incriminating evidence found in a home that was searched under the warrant.
On the other hand, if the warrant is improperly executed, the evidence is not admissible. A police officer cannot, for example, provide false information to obtain a search warrant. Furthermore, if the search…
