This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Adoption

THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DEFINED

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

Chapter 4

 

 

I.    THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DEFINED—any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure is not admissible in a criminal prosecution to prove guilt.

II.  The Purpose of the Rule—the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.

III.A Judge-Made Rule

A.  {Really, this is more of a question.  There are those that believe that it is simply a judge made rule that can be changed by the US Supreme Court, while others believe it’s constitutional in nature.}

IV.        Historical Development

A.  Federal Courts

1.  Weeks v. US (1914)

a)  Evidence illegally obtained by federal officers is to be excluded in all federal prosecutions.

2.  Silver Platter Doctrine

a)  {Originally, evidence illegally obtained by state officers was still allowed to be used in federal courts as long as federal officers didn’t violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.}

(1)        Elkins v US (1960)

(a)        Evidence obtained illegally could not be used in federal prosecutions whether from federal or state officers.  {This case basically did away with the Silver Platter Doctrine.}

B.  State Courts

1.  Originally, the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states.  Wolf v. Colorado 1949.

2.  Mapp v. Ohio (1961)—very famous case.  It overruled the Wolf case and held that the exclusionary rule does apply to the states.

V.  THE RULE APPLIED TO STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS–{Currently, it doesn’t matter where the prosecution is (state or federal) or who obtained the evidence (state or federal officers), unconstitutionally obtained evidence may not be used in a criminal trial.

VI.         INVOKING THE RULE

A.  In Pretrial and Trial Motions

1.  Generally—A pretrial motion to suppress evidence is the usual way of suppression.

a)  Search or seizure with a warrant

(1)        There is a presumption of validity and the defendant must show there was no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.

b)  Search or seizure without a warrant

(1)        The prosecution must show that there was probable cause to make the arrest or that there is an exception to the warrant requirement.

B.  On Appeal

1.  By Defense

a)  If the evidence is admitted at trial and the defendant is convicted, he may then appeal the decision to admit the evidence.

(1)        Harmless Error

(a)        If the evidence should not have been admitted at trial (that is, it was an “error” to do so) on appeal, the prosecution can try to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneously admitted evidence was “harmless” (that is, the defendant would have been convicted anyway).

2.  By Prosecution

a)  If the evidence is suppressed at the hearing stage, most jurisdictions will allow the prosecution to appeal immediately prior to the start of any trial.

C. In Habeas Corpus Proceedings

1.  Defined—a proceeding that seeks the defendant’s release from jail because his constitutional rights were violated before or during his trial.

D. “Standing” and Illegally Seized Evidence

1.  General Rule—the exclusionary rule may be asserted only by the person’s whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated.

a)  Example: Defendant and his friend are in the friend’s house.  Police enter the friend’s house without a warrant and see the defendant doing drugs.  The defendant cannot challenge the entry into his friend’s house because the defendant does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in his friend’s house.  In addition, if the friend is not being arrested for anything, the friend can’t challenge the entry by police in criminal court either

VII.      DETERMINING WHAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE

A.  Illegally Seized Evidence

1.  Illegally seized evidence may not be used at trial to show the defendant’s guilt.

B.  Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

1.  Defined—this doctrine states that once the primary evidence (“the tree”) is shown to have been unconstitutionally obtained, any secondary (or derivative) evidence (“the fruit” is also inadmissible.

a)  Analogy Explained further: if the tree is bad or poisonous, the fruit that comes off of or from that tree must also be poisonous.

VIII.    EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

A.  The Good Faith Exceptions—the “good faith” exceptions allow for evidence to be admitted at trial even though there was some kind or error or mistake as long as this mistake was not done by the police officer, or if committed by the police officer it was an honest and reasonable mistake.

1.  When the Error was Committed by the Judge or Magistrate

2.  When the Error was Committed by a Court Employee

3.  When the Police Erred Accidentally

4.  When the Police Reasonably Believed that Authority to Enter was Valid

5.  When Police Action was Based on a Law Later Declared Unconstitutional.

B.  The Inevitable Discovery Exception

1.  Defined—allows for unconstitutionally obtained evidence to be admitted at trial if the police can prove that they would inevitably have discovered it anyway by constitutional means regardless of their unconstitutional actions.

C. The Purged Taint Exception

1.  Explained: this exception applies when the defendant’s subsequent voluntary act dissipates the taint of the initial illegality.

a)  Example: Defendant unconstitutionally grabbed and brought to the station where a statement is unconstitutionally obtained.  (That’s not good.  It won’t be admissible.)  A few days later, defendant goes to station voluntarily and confesses to the crime after the officer reads the defendant his Miranda warnings (informing him of his rights).  his subsequent proper action by police “purged the taint” of the earlier encounter.

D. The Independent Source Exception

1.  This rule states that evidence may be admissible if the police can prove that it was obtained from an “independent source” that is not connected with the illegal search or seizure.

IX.        WHEN THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY (The below list are instances where the exclusionary rule does not apply.)

A.  In Violations of the “Knock and Announce” Rule

1.  The “knock and announce” rule—many jurisdictions require that the police knock on the door and “announce” their presence prior to executing a search warrant.

a)  The Supreme Court has held that a violation of the knock and announce rule does not require suppression.  Hudson v. Michigan (2006).

B.  In Private Searches

1.  The Fourth Amendment only protects against governmental action.  If a private citizen breaks into your home and finds a dead body, the evidence will not be suppressed.

C. In Grand Jury Investigations

D. In Sentencing

E.  When Arrest Based on Probable Cause Violates State Law

F.  When Only Agency Rules Are Violated

G. In Noncriminal Proceedings

H. In Parole Revocation Hearings

X.  ARGUMENTS FOR THE RULE—some arguments for the rule are below:

A.  Deters police misconduct

B.  Protects the right of privacy

C. Preserves the integrity of the judicial system

 

XI.        ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RULE—some arguments against the rule are below:

A.  “The criminal goes free because the constable has blundered.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo

B.  The rule is not based on the Constitution and is only made by the court.

XII.      ALTERNATIVES TO THE RULE

A.  An independent review board in the executive branch

B.  A civil tort action against the government

C. A hearing separate from the main criminal trial but before the same judge or jury

D. Adoption of an expanded good faith exception

E.  Adoption of the British system (This is where the illegally obtained evidence is still admitted at trial, however, the officer is subject to police department discipline.)

XIII.    THE FUTURE OF THE RULE

A.  Many people have different view points on how they would to see the rule treated in the future:

1.  Some want the rule to remain intact as is

2.  Some want the rule to be abolished

3.  Some want the rule to be modified (no clear consensus on what those modifications should be.)

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask