Exclusionary Rule vs. European Court of Human Rights Research Paper - 786 Words

TOP ESSAY WRITING SERVICES REVIEWS


Rank
Service
General
Prices

1
  • Since 2008
  • Free revisions
  • Money-back guaranty
  • Up to 5% for the first order. Up to 15% for the orders starting from 2nd

from $9.97/pp

visit site

2
  • Since 2009
  • Free title page, revisions
  • Discount policy
  • Satisfaction guarantee
  • More than 100 000 orders delivered

from $9.97/pp

visit site

3
  • Since 2010
  • PhD holding authors only
  • SMS notifications & VIP support
  • Discount policy

from $22/pp

visit site

4
  • Since 2010
  • 24/7 support team
  • More than 500 writers
  • Money-back guaranty
  • Up to 15% discounts

from $9.97/pp

visit site

 

StudyMode - Premium and Free Essays, Term Papers & Book Notes

Products

About

@2017 studym.wressy.com

Exclusive

  1. Home >
  2. Essays >
  3. Exclusionary Rule vs....

Exclusionary Rule vs. European Court of Human Rights

Only available on StudyMode Open Document Save to my library

Please sign up to read full document.

Text Preview Should evidence that was obtained illegally or in violation of human privacy be admissible in court? The Exclusionary Rule in the United States protects the privacy of citizens, and evidence proved to be obtained in such a manner is not admissible. However, this rule has stirred up a lot of controversy in the United States and not all countries have the same perspective on this issue. In Europe, The European Court of Human Rights holds a slightly different position on the rights people have and the way evidence is obtained. The exclusionary rule is defined as “The principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (Farlex, 2011) The rule was fashioned in the early 1900s, before then any relevant evidence was admissible in a criminal trial, no matter what manner it was obtained. In 1914, the case of Weeks v. United States, a federal agent entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery ticking through the mail. The search was conducted without a warrant, and on appeal the court held the way the papers were seized from Weeks’ residence directly violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Weeks’s conviction was reversed in the first application of the exclusionary rule. Even so, the rule was devised to deter police misconduct; it was not intended to be a cure all for every Fourth Amendment violation. In 1984 the courts established the Good Faith exception to Fourth Amendment violations in United Sates v. Leon. The Good Faith exception basically states that evidence obtained through an honest mistake would not be excluded from trial if the law enforcement officer, although mistaken, acted reasonably. In contrast to the exclusionary rule, The European Court of Human Rights has adopted an inclusionary approach... Show More

Please sign up to read full document.

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

POPULAR ESSAYS

Tom Thomson the Jack Pine Pro-Nafta Nutrition Essay Competitor analysis Essay Employment Essay Learning Essay Crime Essay Afterlife Essay

Share this Document

Cancel Send

Join millions of other students and start your research

Become a StudyMode Member

SIGN UP - IT's FREE

Have a great research document you think will help inspire other StudyMode members?

Share your document

Upload Now

Get full access to more research and tools for only $0.33/day

Upgrade your Membership

GET PREMIUM @2017 studym.wressy.com Legal Site Map Advertise studym.wressy.com, Online Education, Hollywood, CA

More great study tools:


{"hostname":"studym.wressy.com","essaysImgCdnUrl":"\/\/images-study.netdna-ssl.com\/pi\/","useDefaultThumbs":true,"defaultThumbImgs":["\/\/stm-study.netdna-ssl.com\/stm\/images\/placeholders\/default_paper_1.png","\/\/stm-study.netdna-ssl.com\/stm\/images\/placeholders\/default_paper_2.png","\/\/stm-study.netdna-ssl.com\/stm\/images\/placeholders\/default_paper_3.png","\/\/stm-study.netdna-ssl.com\/stm\/images\/placeholders\/default_paper_4.png","\/\/stm-study.netdna-ssl.com\/stm\/images\/placeholders\/default_paper_5.png"],"thumb_default_size":"160x220","thumb_ac_size":"80x110","isPayOrJoin":false,"essayUpload":false,"site_id":1,"autoComplete":false,"isPremiumCountry":false,"userCountryCode":"US","logPixelPath":"\/\/smhpix.com\/pixel.gif","tracking_url":"\/\/smhpix.com\/pixel.gif","cookies":{"unlimitedBanner":"off"},"essay":{"essayId":34593223,"categoryName":"Organizations","categoryParentId":"3","currentPage":1,"format":"text","pageMeta":{"text":{"startPage":1,"endPage":3,"pageRange":"1-3","totalPages":3}},"access":"premium","title":"Exclusionary Rule vs. European Court of Human Rights","additionalIds":[17,9,16,10],"additional":["Literature","Entertainment","Law","Geography"],"loadedPages":{"html":[],"text":[1,2,3]}},"user":null,"canonicalUrl":"http:\/\/studym.wressy.com\/essays\/Exclusionary-Rule-Vs-European-Court-Of-611878.html","pagesPerLoad":50,"userType":"member_guest","ct":10,"ndocs":"1,500,000","pdocs":"6,000","cc":"10_PERCENT_1MO_AND_6MO","signUpUrl":"https:\/\/studym.wressy.com\/signup\/","joinUrl":"https:\/\/studym.wressy.com\/join","payPlanUrl":"\/checkout\/pay","upgradeUrl":"\/checkout\/upgrade","freeTrialUrl":"https:\/\/studym.wressy.com\/signup\/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fstudym.wressy.com%2Fcheckout%2Fpay%2Ffree-trial\u0026bypassPaymentPage=1","showModal":"get-access","showModalUrl":"https:\/\/studym.wressy.com\/signup\/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fstudym.wressy.com%2Fjoin","joinFreeUrl":"\/essays\/?newuser=1","siteId":1,"facebook":{"clientId":"306058689489023","version":"v2.9","language":"en_US"}} tracking img