ipl-logo

Exclusionary Rule Research Paper

1123 Words5 Pages

Name here
Exclusionary rule
University name
Professor name
Course name and section
2 July 2016

Abstract
The legal system is one of the least understood concepts in the modern world. One issue today is the role of the exclusionary rule. This paper will define the exclusionary rule in two key contexts: the confession system and the role of the fourth amendment in evidence gathering. 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 …show more content…

Most often, this rule is applied when the confession violates Miranda. Of course, the latter definition is the result of the notorious Miranda v. Arizona, a case infamous for its conflict with the defendant’s knowledge of his own rights (Worrall 2007). The exclusionary rule can be cited in one of three major cases, including those involving: standing, impeachment, and fruit of the poisonous tree (Worrall 2007). First is the role of the exclusionary rule in standing cases. Couch v United States held that one’s knowledge of their Miranda rights is a personal right (Worrall 2007). Someone who hopes to have their confession or interrogation deemed to be invalid must possess the proper standing. That is, there must be proper evidence that the confession was obtained by force or by violating the suspect’s rights. Otherwise, the standing is deemed invalid and the exclusionary rule does not …show more content…

The exclusionary rule in this instance relies directly on verbal communication instead of written confessions. For example, in Wainwright v. Greenfield, the Supreme Court ruled that silence is never the same as an outright confession, and cannot be utilized as evidence against the defendant (Worrall 2007). Under the exclusionary rule in the courtroom, an interrogation and confession are valid only if three requirements are met. It must be obtained willingly; it must be verbal; and the evidence surrounding it must not conflict with the defendant’s own out-of-court confession (Worrall 2007). Finally, the exclusionary rule covers the fruit of the poisonous tree argument. Through the exclusionary rule, “the Court has held that physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is admissible, as long as the information supplied by the accused was voluntary in the due process sense” (Worrall 2007). Thus, the exclusionary rule would not apply and the evidence would be deemed valid.
The Fourth

Show More
Related
695 Words | 3 Pages

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

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
853 Words | 4 Pages

custodial interrogations do not need to be recorded to satisfy the due process requirements in the United States. Moreover, there were seven police officers that testified one of which was not even part of their Department so it stands to reason that it is unlikely that seven officers would attempt to circumvent the law. However, it should be noted It is believed that there should be a remedy to the law as the recording of evidence allows for a quicker and more effective examination of the interrogations and better protect the rights of citizens. “An exclusionary rule is a drastic remedy. I believe such a drastic remedy should be applied only after a full hearing of all the policy implications and with adequate notice to law enforcement.

Read More
734 Words | 3 Pages

Fare v. Michael C. is a case from 1979 where the United States Supreme Court reviewed what would make a juvenile’s confession inadmissible in court (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The case begins with the respondent, Michael C., a 16-year-old juvenile being taken into custody by Van Nuys police in California on the suspicion of murder. He was immediately taken to the police station for questioning. Prior to the beginning of questioning, police fully advised Michael of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. At the beginning of the questioning, Michael, who was on probation in the Juvenile Court, asked for his probation officer to be present.

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
285 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
596 Words | 3 Pages

Introduction: The United States Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and United States v. Agurs all deal with the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. These cases establish that prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused. Failure to disclose this information violates due process and can result in a new trial or acquittal.

Read More
1622 Words | 7 Pages

Even though the circumstantial evidence implicated Brad, the forensic evidence presented was sufficient to implicate Knox. The testimony made by Mrs. Knox was admissible as the spousal privilege was broken. However, the defense representing Knox could argue based on the Fourth Circuit to dismiss the testimony against him. The Fourth Circuit holds that Mrs. Knox’s statement should be inadmissible and as such, violates the confrontation clause. The use of this testimony to implicate Knox violates the aspect of spousal privileges.

Read More
645 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
1845 Words | 8 Pages

The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure or information derived from the evidence from an illegal search and seizure will be inadmissible in court. Wolf v Colorado being overturned is an example of this. Police obtained Wolf’s appointment book with the information as to who Wolf’s patients were. The book is evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The police then interrogated some of Wolf’s clients.

Read More
616 Words | 3 Pages

Fourth Amendment Is the exclusionary rule a benefit to us as a country or is it a hindrance to stopping criminals? When this country was in its infancy and we were part of another kingdom. We were being oppressed and harassed unnecessarily by the government. The present government at the time, which was the King of England was in the habit of searching people 's houses and persons, confiscating papers and effects without due process because they were attempting to stifle dissent (Gutzman, 2007).

Read More
2616 Words | 11 Pages

This rule is of common law origin and can be visible in the Federal Rules of Evidence, S606(b) following which many similar versions have been adopted in many U.S. states and Canada. This is usually practiced to keep the jurors from being harrowed and for the victims can be reassured anonymity which would be breached if vital minute details of the case while deliberation are disclosed to the public in general. The non-disclosure on the other hand was questioned in the case of Eric Garner, which was a case in New York where charges were brought about against a police officer for chokehold death of the victim.

Read More
493 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
1231 Words | 5 Pages

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).

Read More
536 Words | 3 Pages

If a defendant caused a witness to be absent but had not done so prevent that witness from testifying then the exception cannot apply. Id. Thus, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the exception does not apply “outside the context of deliberate witness tampering.” Id. at 366. The Missouri Supreme Court has also held that there must be an “intent to prevent the witness from testifying.”

Read More

More about Exclusionary Rule Research Paper

Related Topics

Open Document