The exclusionary rule states that any evidence gained by law enforcement officers as a result of breaking the law may not be used as evidence in the court of law. Since it was first created in 1914, the exclusionary rule has been controversial. Supporters say it is the only way to protect our 4th amendment rights guaranteeing citizens the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures while dissenters claim it unduly hinders police officers and prosecutors, letting criminals go free. What this really boils down to is the most basic conflict in government: individual rights vs. classical republicanism. Is it better to take rights away from individuals so that society can more easily prosecute criminals, or is this a step towards Orwellian society where individuals have no rights? Or, to put it another way, is it better to face a threat from dangerous individuals or to face a threat from a dangerous and oppressing government? Logic, and history, states that dangerous individuals are less of a threat then a unified oppressive governmental force. In the interest of the future of America, the exclusionary law should stay the way it is.
If the exclusionary rule is dropped altogether, the 4th amendment might as well be crossed out from the constitution. The 4th amendment without the exclusionary rule is like the constitution without the 14th amendment. The exclusionary rule is the only major measure in place to assure us our 4th amendment freedoms, those of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. If it were not in place, police could do whatever they deemed necessary to gather evidence, and the individual would no longer have any right to privacy. That would mean anything you had at your house, on your person, in your car, could be searched and used against you in court. .
It has been argued that there is nothing wrong with this; that only those who have something to hide would be hurt if the exclusionary rule was eliminated.
In 1914 the exclusionary rule was enacted by the U.S. ... However there are three exceptions to the Exclusionary rule. ... February 4, 1997 Exclusionary Rule Frees Criminals. ... "Evaluation of the Exclusionary Rule."" www.yahoo.com. ... "In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule."" ...
The exclusionary rule is considered to be the most vital to the protection of civil rights. ... However, the exclusionary rule had a long history before it could adequately protect citizens. ... The Supreme Court articulation of the exclusionary rule has come in Weeks v. ... United States made the exclusionary rule applicable to the federal government only. ... In 1918, a new doctrine was introduced to supplement the exclusionary rule. ...
The exclusionary rule is the means by which courts enforce the constitutional rights of would-be defendants. ... There are various statutory exclusionary rules in addition to the rule established by the Supreme Court. ... The problem with the exclusionary rule lies in the inefficiencies caused by such "red-tape" as described in the Caceres case. The application of the exclusionary rule in such a way would result in a significant inhibition of the legal process. ... The second rationale is the theory that the exclusionary rule acts as deterrence to future violations of the Constitution. ...
The question is if the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule prevent the government from using the drugs against Eddie at his trial? In my judgment, the exclusionary rule and the 4th Amendment does not apply to Eddie's case, resulting that the drugs can be used against him. ... In conclusion, do the 4th Amendment and or the exclusionary rule prevent the government from using the drugs against Eddie at his trial? In my judgment, the exclusionary rule and the 4th Amendment does not apply to Eddie's case and therefore the drugs can be used against him. ... The exclusionary rule says t...
United States was the first case to introduce the Exclusionary Rule. ... Ohio case bought the exclusionary rule to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The exclusionary rule was established to ensure that illegally seized evidence could not be used in conviction because it violated the Fourth Amendment. ... They came up with an addition to the rule, called fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine. ... Good Faith Exceptions limited the exclusionary rule. ...
The exclusionary rule was first established for federal prosecutions in the landmark case Weeks v. ... Although the Supreme Court didn't mention the phrase exclusionary rule, its decision created the rule, and the phrase was created later. ... The first article, "In Defense of the Exclusionary Rule", supports the due process model. ... The second article is on "Exclusionary Rule and Black Bag Jobs". ... He says that the exclusionary rule is mostly meaningless. ...
In 1984, the "Good Faith Exception" was added to the exclusionary rules allowing law enforcement officials who conduct lawful search and seizure on the basis of good faith, and later discover that a mistake was made in the issuance of the warrant that would violate the constitutional rights of the individual. ... Officer Rombach however had acted in good faith, the court rejected the suggestion of adding good faith exception do to reliance on a search warrant to the exclusionary rule. In this case the only question presented was the question whether a good-faith exception to the exclusionary ...
DECISION: Disagreement over the exclusionary rule, expressed in academic circles and the public, also was evident among the jurists. Six voted to overturn Mapp's conviction, but only five expressed full support for the exclusionary rule. ... The underscored ideal of this case is that the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure guidelines embodied with the Exclusionary Rule created the so called "sporting thesis" under which the government must play the game fairly and cannot be permitted to profit from its own illegal acts. ... In the eyes of the Supreme Court, the first and primary rat...
The exclusionary rule was adopted to prevent abuses by the police and other government officials. ... The Weeks decision only affected federal courts, and two-thirds of the state courts rejected the exclusionary rule, claiming the rule placed unnecessary burdens on the police and the rule favored the guilty. ... Supreme Court expanded the rights of the accused by applying the exclusionary rule to both federal and state criminal trials. ... In contrast supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that excluding illegally seized evidence is necessary to deter police from conducting illegal searc...