Exclusionary Rule

docx

School

Moi University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by EarlWorldApe6

1 Exclusionary Rule First Name, middle initial(s), last name Department, University/College Course Number: Course Name Instructor’s Name Due Date

2 Exclusionary Rule Development of the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule is a legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence obtained illegally or in violation of a defendant's Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights in a criminal trial ( Ferguson, 2019) . It was developed by the United States Supreme Court as a way to deter police misconduct and protect citizens' constitutional rights in respect to the police. The rule traces its roots back to the 1886 case Boyd v. United States :: 116 U.S. 616 (1886), where the Supreme Court held that a government official could not force a person to produce private papers or documents that could be used as evidence against them ( Ferguson, 2019) . The Court reasoned that such a forced disclosure would violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments' protections against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination. However, it wasn't until the landmark case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) that the exclusionary rule was applied to state criminal trials. The Mapp Court held that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since then, the exclusionary rule has become a cornerstone of criminal procedure in the United States. Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct and protect citizens' constitutional rights. If evidence is obtained illegally or in violation of a defendant's rights, it should not be used against them in a criminal trial ( Turner & Weigend, 2019) . This ensures that law enforcement officers are held accountable for their actions and that citizens' rights are respected. The exclusionary rule also serves to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system. If illegally obtained evidence were allowed in court, it would undermine the fairness

3 and impartiality of the trial. It would also send the message that law enforcement officers can violate citizens' rights with impunity, eroding public trust in the justice system. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Although the exclusionary rule is a critical safeguard against police misconduct and constitutional violations, there are exceptions to its application. One such exception is the good faith exception, which allows evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be used in court if the police officers acted in good faith reliance on a warrant or other legal authority ( Sack, 2017) . This exception was established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Leon :: 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Another exception is the inevitable discovery doctrine, which allows evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure to be admissible if it would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means. This exception was established by the Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams :: 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Finally, the Supreme Court has also recognized the attenuation exception, which allows evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure to be admissible if the connection between the illegality and the evidence is sufficiently attenuated. This exception was established by the Supreme Court in Wong Sun v. United States :: 371 U.S. 471 (1963). These exceptions are important because they balance the need to protect citizens' rights with the need to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions. In some cases, excluding evidence obtained illegally may allow a guilty defendant to go free. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule ensure that evidence that would have been discovered lawfully or that has a sufficiently attenuated connection to the illegality can be used in court. Davis v. United States :: 564 U.S. 229 (2011) One Supreme Court case that discusses an exception to the exclusionary rule is Davis v. United States :: 564 U.S. 229 (2011). In this case, the police officers conducted a

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 warrantless search of a suspect's apartment after he was arrested for violating his supervised release ( Petrey & Brook, 2021) . The officers found a firearm and ammunition during the search. The defendant argued that the evidence should be excluded because the search was conducted without a warrant and was not justified by any exception to the warrant requirement. The government argued that the evidence should be admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the officers believed in good faith that they had the authority to conduct the search. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the good faith exception applied and that the evidence should not be excluded. The Court reasoned that the officers had relied on a statute that they reasonably believed authorized the search, even though the statute did not actually apply in this case. The Court concluded that the exclusionary rule should not be applied when the police officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute, even if that reliance is ultimately mistaken. My Opinion on the Supreme Court's Ruling In my opinion, the exclusionary rule is an essential safeguard against police misconduct and violations of citizens' constitutional rights. The rule ensures that law enforcement officers are held accountable for their actions and that the justice system operates fairly and impartially. However, I also believe that exceptions to the exclusionary rule are necessary to balance the need for justice and accountability with the need to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions. The good faith exception, inevitable discovery doctrine, and attenuation exception allow evidence that would have been discovered lawfully or has a sufficiently attenuated connection to the illegality to be used in court.

5 Regarding the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v. United States, I think the Court made the right decision in applying the good faith exception. The officers had acted in good faith reliance on a statute they believed authorized the search, even though that belief was mistaken. It would be unfair to exclude the evidence in this case because the officers acted reasonably and in good faith. However, I think it is important to ensure that the good faith exception is not abused or used as a loophole to justify unconstitutional searches or seizures. The courts must continue to carefully balance the need for justice and accountability with the need to protect citizens' rights.

6 References Ferguson, A. G. (2019). The exclusionary rule in the age of blue data. Vand. L. Rev. , 72 , 561. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi? handle=hein.journals/vanlr72§ion=15 . Petrey, M. S., & Brook, C. A. (2021). State v. Carter and the North Carolina Exclusionary Rule. NCL Rev. F. , 100 , 1. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi? handle=hein.journals/addendum100§ion=2 . Sack, E. J. (2017). Illegal Stops and the Exclusionary Rule: The Rule of Consequences of Utah v. Streiff. Roger Williams UL Rev. , 22 , 263. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi- bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/rwulr22§ion=9 . Turner, J. I., & Weigend, T. (2019). The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: a comparative overview. Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules , 255-282. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/23097/1/1007061.pdf#page= 264 .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Exclusionary Rule

Related Documents