ipl-logo

Exclusionary Rule Pros And Cons

645 Words3 Pages

The exclusionary rule was first established in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914. During the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained by the law enforcement officer was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and will be inadmissible in federal courts. This rule later became effective in the state courts in 1961 due to the unlawful search of Mrs. Mapp’s house in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. As a result of this case, Mrs. Mapp was convicted for possession of obscene materials but later argued that the law enforcement officer could not use the materials in the trial because they were obtained without a warrant. Although the exclusionary rule is not an independent constitutional right, it serves many purposes such as aiding in the deterrence of police misconduct and providing solutions to defendants whose …show more content…

While some states followed the Supreme Court in adopting this rule, others stood by the common law rule which allows all evidence to be admissible in court no matter how the evidence was obtained.
Throughout the years many arguments have stemmed from the effectiveness of the exclusionary rule. Those in favor of the exclusionary rule believe that it protects people against unnecessary search and seizure, establishes innocence before guilt, and stops admissibility of false evidence. The exclusionary rule requires all law enforcement officers to provide a warrant in the case of search and seizure to protect people’s right to privacy. The only exception to this rule is if the law enforcement officer has probable cause. The rule also states that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty and any evidence used against the suspect in

Show More
Related
478 Words | 2 Pages

The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

Read More
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
316 Words | 2 Pages

In Wolf vs. Colorado the Supreme Court had decided that it did not. Illegally obtained evidence could be used in trials because the 4th amendment did not apply to states. The principle became known as the exclusionary

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Read More
424 Words | 2 Pages

Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.

Read More
551 Words | 3 Pages

This is a criminal case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that there was no probable cause to arrest Hayes. Hayes did not give consent to be taken to the police station and be detained plus fingerprint. Therefore, Hayed Fourth Amendment rights were violated and the conviction was overturned. Fact of the case: In the 1980’s there was a series of rape and burglary that happened in Punta Gorda Florida.

Read More
506 Words | 3 Pages

To which amendment to the constitution does the case relate? Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court stating that the 4th Amendment should be incorporated. The 4th Amendment prohibits against unreasonable searches and seizures, and during Mapp’s arrest, the police came to the founding of the evidence presented in the trial without a warranty. Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the

Read More
450 Words | 2 Pages

I do agree with Justice Scalia’s principal argument for not using the exclusionary rule to the knock-and announce violations. I think in some cases that knocking on the suspect door can give them time to prepare themselves and maybe hide evidence. Yes, the rule is set to reduce property damage, but in some cases, officers can get shot if the people inside the house are aware that they are committing crime. For instance, if a person is a drug dealer, he sure knows that its illegal. So, having the officer knocking on his door, he probably won’t open or will open with a gun point out.

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More
885 Words | 4 Pages

If the police were to conduct a search without a warrant or consent in this situation, any and all evidence found would be prohibited from use against the suspect in the court of law. This rule is called the exclusionary law, created under the Supreme Court ruling of Mapp v. Ohio (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961), states that any evidence that is illegally obtained during an investigation cannot be used in the court of

Read More
1872 Words | 8 Pages

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Read More
352 Words | 2 Pages

The main three arguments: (1) Critics argued that the rule does very little to deter police misconduct. They claim that most constitutional rights violations are unintentional and the potential for exclusion of evidence will not prevent such accidential violations. The police act in bad faith and officers will often commit perjury to cover Constitutional rights violation. Supporters of the exclusionary rule respond that the rule is not intended to deter individual officer but is intended to have a broader, systemic deterrent effect (general deterrance). Supported by that fact that many police departments have amended their policies in the wake of the Mapp decision and encouraged their officers to adhere to constitutional safeguards.

Read More
313 Words | 2 Pages

According to Professor Douglas W. Portmore, a rule consequentialist, “holds that the rightness of an act depends not on the goodness of its consequences, but on whether or not it is in accordance with a certain code of rules, which has been selected for its good consequences” (Portmore, par 3), which provides that so long as rules prohibit lying then it would be wrong. As to when lying would be permitted, it would solely depend on if the lie adheres to specific rules that have been established. For instance, in the bible one of the Ten Commandments prohibits lying, therefore, with respect to the divine command belief, it would be pertinent to a rule consequentialist (who believes in the divine command theory). On the contrary, if a rule consequentialist

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court trusted that the Constitution charged the exclusionary rule as a remaking of a Fourth Amendment infringement. They saw the truths of the sample, the exclusionary rule which was the assurance of somebody 's protection furthermore required by the Due Process which portrayed the Fourteenth Amendment. The rule stated three purposes by the Mapp Court, the right given by the constitution and stated that when police admitted that they were at fault, judges then extended the violations in court. This would stop misconduct for negligence since the case of Mapp the Supreme Court has seized out many exceptions to the exclusionary rule. I would agree with exclusionary rule, searches are easy to get permission from most defendants.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Read More

More about Exclusionary Rule Pros And Cons

Related Topics

Open Document