Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the
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
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.
The exclusionary rule can make evidence inadmissible in the court of law if that evidence was illegally obtained by a police officer. This protects an individual from unlawful searches and serves as an effective deterrent for police misconduct. One could argue that a mistake on the officer’s behalf should not result in the release of a criminal. This assertion would be reasonable if these fourth amendment violations committed by police officers were honest mistakes. Unfortunately, some illegal evidence is found because of deliberate misconduct by the police.
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.
The exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment allows criminal defendants to be in suppression, considering contained evidence in the results of the investigation that violates the amendment itself. The
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.
Search and seizure law is actually one of the detrimental issues in the criminal justice system. Many officers are sometimes faced with constraints and are not able to work properly given that they fail to understand and distinguish between situations when search warrant are required ( Del, 2014). In incidents that have lawful arrest as well as when there is a plain view exception. In areas where consent is given by a person in authority, there is no need for the search warrant required together with the police stops and frisking a person whom they have a reasonable suspicion on of an act that is equated to a crime. Another example is when a situation is an emergency and there is a hot pursuit given the evidence may disappear before the warrant
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
The general public is okay that some criminals go free if it means police will not violate the 4th amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained illegally shall not be used in the court of law. It also states any evidence found because of the piece of illegal evidence is invalid. The exclusionary rule was first introduced in federal courts with the case Weeks V USA 1919. The rule did not apply to the states until 1961 in Maps V Ohio when they stated it was arrogant to have a rule that only applies to federal courts.
Therefore, reasonable concern exists for additional attention by legal and constitutional scholars in addressing legal procedure and precedence when it comes to private security personnel in search and seizure cases and application of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule was established to prevent the use of unlawfully obtained evidence from being utilized against the accused in a court of law. However, because the established constitutional laws and bill of rights does not always extend to private security officers, opportunity exist to use the “fruit of the forbidden tree”. Moreover, the exclusionary rule is only extended to state action, creating increased risk to both private citizens and private security officers (Caffuzzi,
Therefore, the exclusionary rule continues to generate various debates regarding its impact and relevance in the modern society. Generally, the exclusionary rule is a right to be free from the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable searches and seizures, which in turn provides a dilemma for the society. For some people,
The exclusionary rule is a lawful principle that the United States use, which expresses that the confirmation that was powerfully utilized by the police can 't be utilized in a criminal trial. The motivation behind why this is done it’s for the security of the established rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule states that in the Fifth Amendment no one "should be denied of life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law." The exclusionary rule additionally expresses that in the Fourth Amendment it is intended to shield residents from unlawful pursuits and seizures. It also applies to the infringement of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the privilege to counsel.
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.
Following these definitions, it will define the key differences between the application of the exclusionary rule, such as location, defenses, etc. It will conclude with a brief summary of facts. Introduction To many people with a popular mind, the police are a corrupt organization dedicated to constant hypocrisy and breaking the law instead
