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...
...Contemporary Issues Paper: The ExclusionaryRule
November 6, 2010
The ExclusionaryRule and Its Exceptions
Introduction: The ExclusionaryRule
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. (US Const. amend. IV) Though the Amendment “forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not provide a mechanism for prevention or a remedy.” (Jackson, 1996) After passage of the Fourth Amendment, courts began to make laws regarding the rule against unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts designed a rule known as the ExclusionaryRule, which provided a remedy for the violation of a suspect’s Fourth Amendment privileges: any evidence seized in violation of the suspect’s rights and protections may not be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.
The courts have been working and refining the exclusinary rule since its introduction in the 1900’s. (ExclusionaryRule, n.d.) The first case that applied the exclusionaryrule was the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 393, in which the Supreme Court “held that the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence...
This paper will present the ExclusionaryRule and the original intentions for its enactment. It will discuss the importance of the rule and how it is a protection against an unlawful search and seizure and a violation of the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment. Also, this document will display the history of the ExclusionaryRule, with its first appearance in the case, Boyd v. United States in 1886. Weeks v. United States will show a better-established, stronger version of the exclusionaryrule. Another expansion of the rule will be described by the Mapp v. Ohio case. In this paper, I will also state and describe the four primary exceptions to the exclusionaryrule: Inevitable Discovery Doctrine, Valid Independent Source, Harmless Error, and the Good Faith Exception. I will subsequently describe the possible abuse of these exceptions and the complications with the exceptions. The document will examine statistical data regarding the exclusionaryrule and conclude with my personal opinions regarding the exclusionaryrule and its exceptions.
According to TheFreeDictionary.com, the ExclusionaryRule, by definition, is “the principle based on federal Constitutional Law...
The purpose of the exclusionaryrule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. It is also a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment. Some exceptions of the exclusionaryrule is barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. Some other exceptions to the exclusionaryrule are: (1) a second, unpoisoned/untainted source had a major rule in finding the evidence, (2) the evidence would have been discovered anyways without the tainted evidence, (3) evidence may be used for impeaching a witness on cross examination, (4) a witness’s identification of the defendant is not excluded if the witness could identify the defendant before an illegal arrest (witness recognizes the defendant from the crime, not from the line up), (5) the rule does not apply to evidence presented in grand jury proceedings, and (6) state agents acted under a good faith belief that they were complying with the Fourth Amendment.
The courts have appeared to agree that there is no rationale for the exclusionaryrule other than the deterrence of...
This paper examines the exclusionaryrule. Explains the reasons for the origin of the exclusionaryrule. The paper contends that use of the exclusionaryrule has enabled guilty criminals to go free and that its original intention has been so distorted that it no longer fulfills its intended function and is instead a tool for protecting the rights of criminals Not only how it came about but, the true meaning as well as the exceptions. There are also a number of cases mentioned throughout the paper that have played some role in the exclusionary.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “A legal rule that bars unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court proceedings.” The dictionary provides a basic definition for all to understand however, the definition of the U.S. Supreme Court is more in depth. The U.S. Supreme Court’s definition states, “The name commonly given to the principle that evidence obtained by the government in violation of a defendant's constitutional right may not be used against him. A defendant may prevent the prosecution from using evidence against her by making a “motion to suppress” before trial asking the judge to rule that the evidence is inadmissible.”
The law, 18 U.S.C. sections 3501, provides that courts should weigh...
January 23, 2014
The ExclusionaryRule was designed to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures by law enforcement personnel. If the search of a criminal suspect is searched unreasonable, the evidence obtained in the search will be excluded from trial.
The ExclusionaryRule is a court made rule it is not in any of the statutes, it was not created by the Legislative bodies but rather by the United States Supreme Court. The ExclusionaryRule applies to the federal courts by virtue of the Fourth Amendment. Police misconduct plays a key role the rule and if there wasn’t misconduct within our police department the ExclusionaryRule would not exist today. The Fourth Amendment and the ExclusionaryRule go hand in hand; the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable (illegal) search and seizures and if there is evidence steaming from a violation of the 4th Amendment then that evidence ikest thrown completely out of the trial. The rule mostly is there tas the enforcer on the...
§ 7.01 General Rule
Evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a criminal trial against the defendant.
§ 7.02 Exceptions to the ExclusionaryRule
[A] Non-Trial Criminal Proceedings
Illegally seized evidence may constitutionally be introduced in a variety of non-trial criminal proceedings including: grand jury proceedings, preliminary hearings, bail proceedings, sentencing, and proceedings to revoke parole.
[B] Impeachment at Trial
A prosecutor may introduce evidence obtained from a defendant in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights for the limited purpose of impeaching the defendant's: (1) direct testimony; or (2) answers to legitimate questions put to the defendant during cross-examination. However, such evidence may not be used to impeach other defense witnesses. James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990).
[C] “Good Faith” Exception
 In General
Evidence obtained by a police officer in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently found invalid may be admissible. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). It is necessary that a reasonably well-trained officer would have believed that the warrant was valid. This has come to be known as the “good faith” or Leon exception to the exclusionaryrule. Many states, however, have rejected...
Not one person can answer a question about the "exclusionaryrule" until they know what is stated in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionaryrule go hand in hand. The Fourth Amendment was put into the constitution to limit on the actions of overzealous officers (Peak, 2006). Then, one must understand what is meant by "probable cause." Armed with this information, we can discuss the definition of theexclusionaryrule and some of its history. Also, we will list some of the advantages and disadvantages of the exclusionaryrule and ask the question should it be abandoned.
The Forth Amendment has been under attack and why? Some people believe it is unjust and should be abolished, yet others think that it should just be amended. Will these changes solve the problem? Not likely, there will always be someone who is not happy with the way things are. The reason they are all upset is due to what is in the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionaryrule.
The exclusionaryrule is defined as follows; the exclusionaryrule requires that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded from the governments use in a criminal trial (Peak, 2006).
The Fourth Amendment states that "the...
– Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth
Amendment cannot be used at trial
– The primary purpose of the exclusionaryrule is
to deter police misconduct
– What other purpose does the exclusionaryrule
In Mapp v Ohio (1961), the Court stated
that any evidence seized in violation of
the Fourth Amendment could not be
admitted into any court, state or federal.
Determining What is Inadmissible
– Illegally Seized Evidence
Fruits of the crime
Instruments of the crime
Determining What is Inadmissible
– Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
This is fruit of the
Exceptions to the ExclusionaryRule
– The Good Faith Exceptions
• When the Error Was Committed by the Judge or
Magistrate, Not by the Police
• When the Error Was Committed by a Court
• When the Police Erred but Honestly and...