The Exclusionary Rule keeps most of the illegally obtained evidence from being used at trial, and it protects citizens, along with the Fourth Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. There are some exceptions to this rule that allow illegally obtained evidence to be used at trial.
The exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases because the purpose of this rule is to keep law enforcement officers from violating the Fourth Amendment and create options for defendants who have this right violated (Cornell). This rule is in place to not only protect police officers but defendants as well. It protects police officers when there is a paperwork error, and the officers have no way of knowing at the time of the search that it is bad paperwork.
…show more content…
In the case of United States v. Leon, a search warrant was signed and executed on Leon’s residence. The officers found a large amount of illegal drugs. The search warrant was later found to be insufficient, and the evidence was suppressed at trial(Leon v United States, 1984). This created the issue of whether or not a judge's signed search warrant should be held up during a trial even if found insufficient because of the fact that the judge was neutral in the trial. This case showed the good faith exception and the need behind it, so the issue was resolved by setting strict guidelines to this exception. The officer must have followed the search warrant’s instruction closely, and the judge must be detached from the case. Lastly, the person testifying must be truthful. The “independent source” doctrine applies in the situation where any evidence obtained in an illegal search can be used later if the evidence is gathered with a legal method. The case of Maryland v. Macon established this doctrine because the fifty dollar bill was not admissible, but the magazines were admissible in court even though they were both acquired at the same time (Maryland v. Macon,