The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent law enforcement officers from using illegal means to obtain information that would be considered incriminating to a defendant's case in a court of law. For example, let us suppose the police seize evidence, but during that seizure, they violate one of your guaranteed constitutional rights. Perhaps that evidence was a letter lying on your desk and subsequently taken from your office when a police officer came to question you. Seizure of such evidence without a valid search warrant would deem this evidence inadmissible, at least insofar as it being utilized to provide direct proof of your guilt. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the exclusionary rule applies only where evidence is obtained in violation of the Constitution. It does not apply to evidence gathered for an administrative regulation (i.e., IRS contact). A prime example of this type of issue arose in the case of U.S. v. Caceres . In this case, an IRS agent recorded a conversation between himself and a taxpayer in which the taxpayer offered a bribe to the agent. As this was not a common practice, the IRS required that such surveillance cause the agent to secure preliminary approval from certain IRS officials prior to the actual surveillance taking place. This did not happen in the case of Caceres. Fortunately for the IRS" interests, no constitutional right was violated, and the recorded evidence was permitted as evidence. .
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 need to inform a person they are being recorded during a telephone conversation is understandable, but an agent having to go to such extremes to obtain not only the callers" permission, but also that of specific supervisors is preposterous.
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."" ...
Since it was first created in 1914, the exclusionary rule has been controversial. ... The 4th amendment without the exclusionary rule is like the constitution without the 14th amendment. ... However, the bad that would result from the dropping of the exclusionary rule outweighs the good. ... Even the slight weakening of the exclusionary rule could result in ruinous repercussions for society. ... The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to protect people from illegal search and seizures. ...
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 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...
