The Exclusinary Rule essay
It has been found that the Exclusionary Rule is one of the major topics associated with the application of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to researchers, the Exclusionary Rule “requires the suppression of any evidence obtained unconstitutionally; that is the evidence cannot be used in the trial by the government”(Hensley & Snook, 2007, p. 160). Actually, the Exclusionary Rule is not included in the U.S. Constitution, but it was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1914, while ruling the case Weeks v. United States (1914). In general, the Exclusionary Rule has been a controversial legal issue in the criminal justice system, since its creation because the application of the rule to the legal case may affect the significance of the evidence through its exclusion, and the acquittal of the individuals who can be regarded factually guilty (Hemmens et al., 2009). There are three major exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule created by the U. S. Supreme Court, including independent source exception, good faith exception and inevitable discovery rule, which justify the applicability of the rule.
The major goal of this paper is to discuss the Exclusionary Rule and its exceptions created by the U. S. Supreme Court, paying due attention to the background information regarding the Exclusionary Rule and the current status of the rule.
The Exclusionary Rule: background information
The Exclusionary Rule can be viewed as an important constitutional development that can be effectively used in the criminal justice practice. In fact, the Exclusionary Rule says that “evidence that is obtained by an unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible at trial” (Bast & Hawkins, 2010, p. 573). The Exclusionary Rule announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1914 continues to play an important role in legal practice. However, initially, the Exclusionary Rule was not included in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Exclusionary Rule was not applied to various legal proceedings of the State Courts. In 1961, reviewing the case Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, this application of the Exclusionary Rule was changed because the U.S. Supreme Court “declared that the evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution could not be used in state or federal criminal proceedings” (Bast & Hawkins, 2010, p. 573).
The major goal of the Exclusionary Rule is to deter police misconduct or unethical behavior in relation to community members. The proponents of the Exclusionary Rule state that the rule emanates from the U.S. Constitution, while the opponents of the rule state that it has elation to the established constitutional rights (Kerr, 2010). Actually, “the Supreme Court has indicated that it is merely a judicially created remedy for Violations of the Fourth Amendment”(Hemmens et al., 2009, p. 127).
In addition, the Exclusionary Rule has been a controversial issue in the criminal justice system. The intense debates were connected with the lack of the proper textual language in the U.S Constitution regarding the applicability of the rule. This fact can be explained by the fact that many opponents the rule suggest that the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court has been exceeded by this rule. They argue that the legislative branch is responsible for issuing such laws, rules and regulation (Bast & Hawkins, 2010).
However, there is another view of this issue. The proponents of the Exclusionary Rule consider that the Bill of Rights is unproductive without the application of the Exclusionary Rule (Kerr, 2010). In fact, many issues can be resolved prior to trial in the court through the application of the so-called motion to suppress (Bast & Hawkins, 2010; Hemmens et al., 2009). The United States is the only nation that protects citizens from illegal searches and seizures conducted by the police through the application of the Exclusionary Rule.
Current status of the Exclusionary Rule
and its exceptions created by the U. S. Supreme Court
In the 1980s, the scope of the Exclusionary Rule was limited by more conservative action of the U.S. Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, there are three major exceptions that should be taken into consideration by the Court, including “independent source exception, good faith exception and inevitable discovery rule” (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). Court decisions refer to the situations in which the evidence obtained by the police can be viewed as admissible in court; even there are some violations in police conduct or in the warrant issued by the court (Kerr, 2010).
Independent source exception
Independent source exception is a rule that permits the admission of evidence that has been obtained “by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation” (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). For example, if a police officer makes a decision to enter the house of a drug dealer or any other person involved in criminal activity with an arrest warrant, he has the right to search his house in order to seize important evidence, such as drugs, weapons, etc. The illegally obtained evidence can be used in the court, if, independently, a warrant has been issued to search the house for the same kind of evidence but “had not yet arrived in the scene” (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). In other words, independent source exception can be viewed as the admissible evidence obtained by the police if they can prove its independent source not linked with the illegal search or seizure (Siegel, 2009). There are two cases that can be used as examples of application of this rule: United States v. Crews (1981) and State v. O’Brernski (1967). In the case United States v. Crews (1981), the Court ruled that the initial illegal use of evidence could not affect the prosecutors’ decision to prove guilt through the application of evidence obtained by the police in a constitutional manner. In the case State v. O’Brernski (1967), the testimony of a teenager girl, who was found in the house during the illegal search, regarding the defendant’s involvement in sexual activity with her, can be regarded as admissible in the court.
Good faith exception
Good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule is a rule that permits the admission of evidence obtained by the police even there were some mistakes which can be characterized as honest, reasonable and objective. Actually, “the honest and objectively reasonable belief” by the police officer is crucial to make the act lawful (Hensley & Snook, 2007, p.345). According to the court’s decision, there are seven situations that come from actual legal cases and constitute the exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule under the category of good faith exception:
- when the judge (or magistrate) made a mistake (the case Massachusetts v. Shappard, 1984);
- when the court employee made a mistake (the case Arizona v. Evans, 1995);
- when the police officers “erroneously, but honestly and reasonably” believed that the information they provided to the court was accurate (the case Maryland v. Garrison, 1987);
- when the police believed the person, who permitted them to enter a building or a house, was authorized to do so (the case Illinois v. Rodrigues, 1990);
- when the police officers obtained evidence, relying on mistakes of other police officers, and these “errors were merely negligent and isolated and not systematic, recurring and deliberate” (the case Herring v. United States, 1990);
- when the police officered conducted a search based on legal precedent established by the court (the case Davis v. United States, 2011) (Hensley & Snook, 2007; Bast et al., 2010).
Inevitable discovery rule
Inevitable discovery rule is the exception to the Exclusionary Rule that permits the admission of evidence obtained the police if the police officers can prove that they would inevitably have discovered the evidence anyway by lawful means (Hemmens et al., 2009). In other words, “this rule holds that the evidence obtained through unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established to a very high degree of probability, that police investigation would be expected to lead to the discovery of the evidence” (Siegel, 2009, p. 345). The case Nix v. Williams (1984) is based on the application of the inevitable discovery rule.
Conclusion
Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the Exclusionary Rule is an important constitutional development that is aimed at discouraging law enforcement personnel from being engaged in misconduct. In other word, the Exclusionary Rule is effective in preventing the admission into evidence obtained by police officers unconstitutionally. Generally speaking, the Exclusionary Rule is justified because it helps to deter illegal searches and seizures.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...