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.
Contingency Exclusionary Rule
LAW AND JUSTICE
Contingent Exclusionary Rule
Dripps' Model in the Real World
The Fourth Amendment of the American Constitution protects the individual from illegal searches and seizures by law enforcers (Dripps, 2001). This is at the heart of the Contingent Exclusionary Rule. But the lack of concrete explanation as to how this is to be implemented has led to continuous debates. One side has come up with numerous suggestions on how it should be implemented only to be opposed by the other side (Dipps).
The Rule states that any evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure is inadmissible as evidence in any court of law (Dipps, 2001). It is a time-honored guarantee, which gives an individual that sense of security against invasion of his privacy except when a warrant is produced. The law enforcer will also be liable for the act. Opponents argue, however, that most police officers do so out of an over-devotion to duty rather than the desire to frame the individual up. Holding the police officer liable or punishing him for his zealousness, though mis-placed, can demoralize him. What usually happens is that such an officer is dealt with internally with some form of disciplinary...
He thus need not be brought to court. The court will immediately dismiss a case if the primary evidence presented was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The individual can then sue the enforcement agency and demand for damages. But if the officer proves that he merely chanced upon the evidence rather than intentionally sought and found it, the evidence may be become admissible (Dripps).
Restorative Justice
This concept or approach does away with harsh legalism in upholding justice by punishing the guilty (RJ, 2015). It considers not only the needs and rights of the victim and the culpability of the offender but also the effect of the offense on the community. Under this concept, the victim takes the initiative in looking beyond the narrow confines of retribution. The offender is made to take full responsibility for his crime by sincerely repenting for it and atoning for it sufficiently. At the same time, he is provided with the opportunity to reform (RJ).
The approach or concept is founded on the view that the crime is a violation committed against the community instead of the state (RJ, 2015). It enables a dialogue between the victim and the offender. It has been found to produce the highest…
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dripps, D. (2001). The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. Vol. 38, Nbr 1,
American Law Review. Retrieved on January 28, 2015 from http://www.law-journals-books-vlex.com/vid/case-for-contingent-exclusionary-rule-54328268
RJ (2015). Biblical justice and restorative justice. Restorative Justice Online: Prison Fellowship International Center for Justice and Reconciliation. Retrieved on January 28, 2015 from http://www.restorativejustice.org/other/chapel/biblical-justice-and-restorative-justice
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
An exception to this is a search conducted by officer acting in objective "good faith" and wit the inclusion of a warrant obtained on the basis of probable cause. A further provision holds that, if a jury has reasonable reason to believe that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Article, it should disregard the evidence obtained. The Texas Penal Code works in tandem with the exclusionary rule, in
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 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