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 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…
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,
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
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
The foundation of these limits is the need to protect the privacy of the individual and control police behaviors. Conclusion: In the three cases, the application of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment could have been helpful in ensuring that the officers conducted their searches more efficiently. In Weeks vs. U.S. And Mapp vs. Ohio, they could have avoided using forceful and illegal means to obtain evidence. Similar to these two
Exclusionary Rule and a Possible Alternative Under the exclusionary rule, as created by United States Supreme Court legal precedent, "illegally obtained evidence has been inadmissible in federal criminal courts since 1914." From the onset of its codification in legal and police protocol, proponents of this rule hoped that it would help eliminate police misconduct and protect individual rights. Of course, to this day, opponents of the exclusionary rule have stated