More handpicked essays just for you.
The rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule
Three arguments for and against the exclusionary rule
Police professionalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 main few being the police officer's safety, the Fourth Amendment, and stop and frisk. Officer Mcfadden testifies that two men, John Terry and Chilton walked and stopped in front of a store, then met up at the corner down the street, and repeated to do so approximately 24 times. This would be considered almost the definition of probable cause, which is reasonable grounds for searching or pressing a charge. McFadden decided under his reasonable cause to interfere and find out what was the situation. Such actions made by the two men convinced the officer he needed to be sure he was safe.
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.
In today’s world a structured society cannot stand without the clear establishment of rules and laws that all citizens are forced to follow if there is to be any hope of peace. In these societies police fill the role of enforcer to these rules and have an obligation and duty to follow these rules to a much stricter degree because if they fail to comply with the law it leaves little hope anyone else will. Cases fill our nation’s criminal justice history with examples of law enforcement and other agencies working against the law and even breaking it in order to obtain the “greater good” and that can be seen in Imbler v. Pachtman (Samaha page 437). In this case a District attorney by the name of Richard Pachtman basically lied threw out the case and decided to pick and choose which evidence best suited his trial needs (Samaha page 437). When the truth finally came out he was protected by immunity and could only be sued in civil court (Samaha page 437).
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 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.
The most important weakness of this policy is that it offers grounds for dirty cops to utilize force illegally to pursue selfish personal agendas that are not in the interests of the public. A police officer can use deadly force and allege that the use of force was necessary when indeed it was not and since there are no effective ways to measure such allegations such officers will end up going scot free. The police officers are supposed to be each other’s keepers and prevent their colleagues from misusing the authority given by the policy while officers who break the law can be charged in court. However, this is not guarantee that such authority will not be used illegally. Another weakness is that cases of mistaken identity can lead to harm to innocent civilians who are suspected of being
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,
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.
