Essay On Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule should not apply to illegal arrest; considering, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the exclusionary rule does not apply to people arrested unlawfully; however, only evidence obtained illegally. (Hall, 2014) If the behavior of a government agency is an outrageous, shocking, and gross invasion of a defendant's constitutional rights, he or she may be free. (Hall, 2014) The Supreme Court has expanded legal luminary described as a "constitutional revolution" interpretation of "due process." The law requires United States courts to divest themselves of a jurisdiction where the defendant's presence at trial, at which the government realizes the fruits of its own deliberate and unnecessary and unreasonable invasion of lawlessness in bringing the accused's constitutional rights to a trial. (Bolstad, 1991) Therefore, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated that the Toscanino situations only apply if the

Most exclusionary rule issues are resolved before trial by way of a motion to suppress as a result of evidence obtained from an illegal arrest must be excluded. (Hall, 2014) An unlawful detention may violate the criminal law in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution. Police are not controlled by the exclusionary rule; more so, than their respect for the law. Pressure may be placed on police to arrest early in the investigative process. Nevertheless, the pressure to arrest is not because of the exclusionary rule; however, the governing police conduct prohibits a search without a warrant, unless the search is incident to a valid arrest. (Paulsen, 1961) The U.S Supreme Court’s ruling that courts must “allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and arduous process of making arrests. (Cormier,