Exclusionary Rule

Certain rules are in place to ensure that not only citizens are protected against unjust stops and or searches against police. The same rules are also in place to protect police to ensure that they follow certain rules to make sure that the arrests or evidence gathered has been properly obtained. Without rules such as the Fourth Amendment, officers would be able to stop and search people at will and invade privacy, more court cases would also be a result and that would be more time and money spent due to the cost of court procedures. Many might not agree that rules and laws are double sided for their protection, some feel the Fourth Amendment only covers the people that the courts want to and others feel that officers can get around the

The rules main goal is to prohibit evidence obtained in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admissible in court (Siegel 2010). The exclusionary rule may prevent evidence seized in violation of a person's constitutional rights from being admitted into court, an officer who has violated someone's rights could also be sued along with their agency. According to Section 1983 of the U.S. Code an officer could be prosecuted criminally under some circumstances as well (Forsythe n.d.). The case United States v. Leon is notable because due to this case the good faith exception was added to the exclusionary rule. The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that evidence acquired illegally must be excluded from trial. This extension of the exclusionary rule is based on the same basis as the exclusionary rule itself, with the main goal of the doctrine to deter illegal police activity and to preserve the integrity of the court. The Supreme Court however, has permitted such evidence to be used in some proceedings (WEAL 2008). The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine differ because Fruit of

Next I would want to speak with Mary and William Ellis, I understand Mary is very shaken up about this incident but I would still want to speak with her and see if I could get any history of why Clyde Stevens might be in their house in the first place. I would ask William what he knew about Clyde, were the Ellis’ friends with the Stevens? What is the history between them, did Clyde have a key to the Ellis’ household? Figuring out where their relationship stood could shed light on why Clyde was in the house and what possible motives could be behind Clyde’s death. I would ask Mary permission to search the house for further evidence or clues, mainly to see if Clyde’s death could have occurred somewhere else in the home and the closet is just where Clyde ended up and also to see if Clyde broke into the home. Regardless if Mary said yes or no to search the home, I would submit affidavit to obtain a search warrant of the Ellis’ home for any evidence such as where did the butcher knife come from. Even if Mary gave me permission to search the home I would file for a warrant keeping the just in case rule in the back of my mind so that if any incriminating evidence might be found that would like either Mary or William to the homicide all evidence found would be admissible in