.
There are, however, exceptions to this rule, though not always efficient and effective in themselves, under certain circumstances. First, in circumstances where certain factors are significant enough to remove the illegality of the original conduct, application of the exclusionary rule can be avoided. This is also known as the "purged taint" rule. Another exception involves evidence that would have been discovered anyway, regardless of the means by which it was actually obtained. Finally, there is the issue of evidence acquired through an independent source. When evidence has been gained through such a source, and the gathering of that evidence is not a result of illegal means, the evidence is not rejected by the exclusionary rule. Although worthy rules in and of themselves, I cannot seem to find cases in which the bulk of them apply. Their application would be ideal for cases involving previously convicted murders or known drug dealers, but application of these exception are more the responsibility of the judiciary than of law enforcement officers.
On the contrary one feather in the cap of legislation and the judicial system exists in the presence of an additional exception that has the potential to be effective. Where evidence obtained as a result of the reasonable belief and good faith that a viable search warrant was issued, yet the warrant was determined to have been unsupported by probable cause, the exclusionary rule may be excepted. In U.S. v. Leon , the Court held that the prosecution may introduce illegally-obtained evidence as part of its case-in-chief against the person whose rights were violated if the police obtained the evidence by relying on a search warrant they reasonably believed to be valid. Again, this is a feasible start for adequate and realistic regulation of evidence, yet, unfortunately, these exceptions do not often provide enough room for law enforcement officers to perform their jobs effectively in their attempts to reduce crime and punish criminals.
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...
