¶ … Exclusionary Rule prevents the admission of evidence that was gathered in an unconstitutional way as specified by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers the parameters of searches and seizures. In fact, officers of the law who conducted unlawful searches or seizures of property could be subject to prosecution under state or statutory law, and in some rare cases, may face criminal charges ("Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule," n.d.). The exclusionary rule does sometimes constrain police behavior in criminal cases, potentially preventing the acquisition of evidence in "good faith," in the presence of "exigent circumstances," or even when probable cause can be retroactively determined ("Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule," n.d.). Therefore, the Exclusionary Rule should not be banned; quite the contrary, it prevents abuses of power or misconduct by law enforcement. The Exclusionary Rule also ensures that criminal trials are conducted in accordance with Constitutional values and laws.
Prior to the 1914 Supreme Court decision Weeks v. United States, there was no Exclusionary Rule. In Weeks v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a defendant appealing...
To qualify for the Exclusionary Rule, the burden of proof is generally placed on the defendant, who must bring a motion to dismiss the evidence. If the motion to suppress the evidence were to be denied, and the defendant was later convicted, the defendant may appeal and the double jeopardy rule might even be waived "because the trial court's error did not go to the question of guilt or innocence, ("The Fourth Amendment and the 'Exclusionary Rule,'" n.d.). The Exclusionary Rule ideally prevents wrongful convictions.
In most cases, the Exclusionary Rule is comprehensive enough to cause the suppression of all evidence from a wrongful search and seizure, and not even just that which was specified in the warrant. Known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, courts may suppress all evidence connected with an unlawful search and seizure to protect the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. The Exclusionary Rule and its corollary "fruit of the poisonous tree" are occasional thorns in the side of law enforcement, and often make the task of evidence gathering difficult. However, the difficulty of performing the roles and duties of law enforcement…
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
Corruption exists within all aspects of government, and has since early civilization. While many steps have been taken to prevent such corruption in other areas of the world, the United States has recently introduced legislation that has the potential to actually increase the amount of possible corruption, particularly in reference to police officers "enforcing" the law. This paper will discuss the U.S.A. Patriot Act and its follow-up legislation, the Domestic
Exclusionary Rule The Future of the Exclusionary Rule The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, were designed to protect citizens against abusive state power. These protections include preventing the government from entering and seizing property without just cause or stripping citizens of their rights without due process (Oaks 665). These protections are encoded within the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
From my knowledge in taking this course thus far as well as with my knowledge of being certified as a police officer, my position for how Dripps model would work is that it would not work. From reviewing and researching his model, I believe his model is very anti-police and seems to take the stance that all police departments and judicial systems have some type of buddy system that embraces