...Exclusionary Rule Evaluation From the Fifth Amendment comes the Exclusionary Rule which affirms that no entities or things may be used and showed in court if taken unlawfully or without appropriate search warrant. Public citizens are well-known with the idea that they have a right to confidentiality, and cannot be investigated devoid of a warrant. Nevertheless, not many people comprehend how the exclusionary rule, which is what truly imposes this right, defends us. The rationale and purpose of Exclusionary Rule discourage police delinquency. Exclusionary Rule is also grounded in Fourth Amendment and it is projected to guard people from prohibited searches and seizures. This Rule is also intended give a deterrent and remedy, which is short of criminal prosecution in reply to prosecutors and police who unlawfully collect substantiation in infringement of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights bound to self-incrimination. This rule also assures the right to counsel (Carrie). The exclusionary rule has 3 elements: unlawful act did by an officer or a person who acts as an agent or police, secured evidence, and informal link between the criminal action and the substantiation secured. There are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule. First is the Independent Source Doctrine which was made in 1984 during the Supreme Court case of Segura and Colon v U.S. This exception is where evidence is apprehended in two different substantial ways meaning the first attempt is illegal and the...
Words: 924 - Pages: 4
...Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Christopher Revels CJA/364 August 1, 2011 University of Phoenix Exclusionary Rule Evaluation When examining the Exclusionary Rule certain measures were taken to integrate some significant meaning and justification constitutionally for law enforcement to follow. The rule does not stem from the Fourth Amendment; however, similar descriptions are found in the definition pertaining to the Fourth Amendment. Historically, the Exclusionary Rule serves as a remedy for understanding how evidence is obtained and could be inadmissible if illegal tactics were taken to gather the evidence. This essay will present a detailed evaluation of the Exclusionary Rule entailing values and rationale including four fundamental exceptions to the exclusionary rule. These exceptions operate under the exclusionary rule premise and will be explained in the essay. In addition, summarize some benefits, disadvantages, and an alternative solution will be expressed in forming my personal opinion-position of the exclusionary rule supported by a strong argument and information. Though examining the Exclusionary Rule as constitute may establish some deterrence for police still opinions do consider the rule unconstitutional behind its existence. The Exclusionary Rule shares no semblance from the Fourth Amendment that gives protection against search and seizure, but originates from the Fifth Amendment. Both establish no evidence may be used in court if obtained...
Words: 1402 - Pages: 6
...Week Two: The Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule Sept 18 - 24 Details Due Points Objectives 2 2.1 Explore the common law background of the Fourth Amendment. 2.2 Analyze the rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary Rule. 2.3 Discuss exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. 2.4 Examine alternative remedies to the Exclusionary Rule. 2.5 Identify the costs and benefits of the Exclusionary Rule. Readings Read the Week Two Read Me First. Read Ch. 2 & 3 of Criminal Procedure. Read Ch. 6 & 8 of The Search and Seizure Handbook. Read this week’s Electronic Reserve Readings. Participation Participate in class discussions. All week 2 Individual Discussion Questions Respond to weekly discussion questions. DQ 1: Thursday DQ 2: Sunday 3 Individual Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Write a 1,000 - 1,200-word paper in which you analyze the rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary Rule, as well as identify the exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. In your analysis state examine the costs and benefits of the Exclusionary Rule, as well as alternative remedies to the rule. Be sure to state your position towards the exclusionary rule and provide support your position. Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines. The paper requires the use of 2 academic resources which can include course materials. Monday 10 Learning Team Fourth Amendment Summary Submit the...
Words: 277 - Pages: 2
...Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Tawanna Whitley CJA/ 364 Feb. - 25, 2014 Debra Austrin Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Criminal procedure has its ups and downs due to the fact of different remedies involving the constitution rights. A remedy is basically the enforcement mechanism for violations of the people’s rights (Worrall, 2012, pg.41). These remedies falls under two categories which are legal, and extralegal. The extralegal remedy are remedies that are conducted outside the legal process such as vigilantism and the legal remedies are those that are made by law, a court decision, and police agency policy or procedure. In the criminal procedure process the most significant remedy is the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule means exclusion; it states any evidence that was obtained in any violation of the constitution will not be presented in a criminal court to prove guilt. In 1886 the rule was used in the case Boyd v. United States (116 U.S. 616 [1886], Worrall, 2012).With this case the courts held that the evidence was improbably obtained and it was within violation with amendment fourth and fifth. The fourth amendment is illegal search and seizer while the fifth Amendment secures self-incrimination. By 1960 different states had come up with their own version similar to the exclusionary rule such within Elkins v. United States (Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 [1960], Worrall, 2012) . In this case the silver platter doctrine has been accessible. This doctrine...
Words: 1506 - Pages: 7
...Crim 1010 24 Oct 2011 The Exclusionary Rule Everyone knows about the concept that they have the right to privacy and cannot be searched without a proper warrant. Unfortunately, many people don’t know about the exclusionary rule, which is what actually protects us from unlawful searches. With the growing problem of police misconduct, the exclusionary rule was put in place to curb this misconduct. This rule basically is what enforces the fourth amendment stating that if any evidence is obtained through an illegal search or seizure of a person or their property, it will be suppressed in court. In order for the exclusionary rule to be in effect, there are three main criteria that must be met. For starters, an officer of the law must have performed an illegal action. Next, evidence must be secured. Finally, the first two criteria must have at least a slight coincidence with each other. Even if all three of these are present, if they can’t all be proved, the exclusionary rule would be exempt. It is the defenses job to notice if this has happened and file a petition to suppress the evidence obtained. When this occurs, the prosecution must then prove them wrong. It’s kind of a “guilty until proven innocent” situation for the prosecution. There are three exceptions that the prosecution should look at when trying to prove their case. The Independent Source doctrine is the first exception. This doctrine says that if evidence is obtained...
Words: 502 - Pages: 3
...Paul Honorat Title : Mapp V. Ohio Citation: 367 U.S. 643 Facts: Three Cleveland police officers arrived at the petitioner’s residence pursuant to information that a bombing suspect was hiding out there and that paraphernalia regarding the bombing was hidden there. The officers knocked and asked to enter, but the petitioner refused to admit them without a search warrant after speaking with her attorney. The officers left and returned approximately three hours later with what purported to be a search warrant. When the petitioner failed to answer the door, the officers forcibly entered the residence. The petitioner’s attorney arrived and was not permitted to see the petitioner or to enter the residence. The petitioner demanded to see the search warrant and when presented, she grabbed it and placed it in her shirt. Police struggled with the petitioner and eventually recovered the warrant. The petitioner was then placed under arrest for being belligerent and taken to her bedroom on the second floor of the residence. The officers then conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. The petitioner was ultimately convicted of possessing these materials. Issues: Whether evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution shall be admissible in a State court? Judgment: On May 03, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information...
Words: 605 - Pages: 3
...Q2 - According to Hall (2015), there are several factors the court takes into consideration when evaluating if the search was truly voluntary; 1) Suspects knowledge of the right to refuse; 2) Age, intelligence and language skill of the suspect; 3) Degree of cooperation by the suspect; 4) Length of detention; 5) Suspects attitude about the likelihood of discovery during the search; 6) Nature of the detention and questioning by police and whether the suspect was intimidated or coerced by the officer statements. As far as lying goes, this is a slippery slope. The courts are all over the place on this as to the degree or “totality of the circumstances” as to what is permissible. An example is Contreras-Ceballos v. U.S. (1993); state and federal...
Words: 267 - Pages: 2
...Carmen Cabresita 8/4/13 AJS/502 Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio The Supreme Court case of Mapp v. Ohio was heard in 1961 and originated in the local courts of the State of Ohio. This case plays an important role currently in our court system because it focuses on the warrant, search and seizures, Exclusionary Rule, Due Process and the 4th Amendment. This has molded every aspect in which the police agencies and the government as to how they can retrieve any incriminating evidence from any potential offender in the United States thru our criminal justice system. Mapp v. Ohio (Plaintiff) is unique because this case challenged the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the Supreme Court level. This case also challenged a police department because it was also able to show that at times the police officers are not meeting the criteria of which a warrant must be served on an individual. The police officers in this case had served a questionable warrant to Ms. Mapp that should have been for another individual within the same residence. The officers were attempting to incriminate MS. Mapp with evidence not pertaining to her in hopes of holding someone liable. The person in question that they were investigating no longer lived at that residence. As it turned out the warrant that was served was a bogus one, which the court, while it was conducting the trial, was unable to obtain. Evidence presented during trial was a gun and pornographic material. There were three police...
Words: 1138 - Pages: 5
...In 1914 the US Supreme court created the exclusionary rule after the weeks v United States. This is only valid on federal level court. The exclusionary rule is when the court can legally deny a part of evidence used in a criminal trial. The exemplary rule is not apart of a citizen's rights but it's a choice that the court decides on when any law enforcement officer illegally collects evidence. The reason the exemplary rule exists is because many times officers misconduct evidence and try using it on trail. There is a few exceptions to the exemplary rule such as any evidence obtained by a police officer with a proper warrant and is believed to be valid may be used in trail ;this action is called the good faith exception. Another is called the...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...Raven Jones David Harper CJA/364 September 17, 2012 Exclusionary Rule Have you ever thought about what our country would be like if we did not have any rules or regulations? It would be a world of chaos, and would not be enjoyable. One rule we could never live without is the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is protected by the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence collected that violates the criminal’s right can not be used in court. The only way that illegal evidence may be used in a court room, is IF and WHEN the lawyer can prove to the judge that there is nothing linking misconduct by the police and gathering the evidence. The exclusionary rule has one sole purpose. That purpose is to deter police misconduct instead of punishing the errors of judges. The rationale for the exclusionary rule that was given by the courts was unclean hands. Unclean hands is a legal document which states that a person that is asking for judgment may not receive any help from the court if they have any unethical actions in regards to the lawsuit (“The Exclusionary Rule, n.d.”). There are many different exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Good faith exception is a document that gives exception to the exclusionary rule when evidence is collected illegally. The only way it can be submitted in court is if the police officer is acting in good faith. Another exception to this rule is if a second un-poisoned or untainted source had...
Words: 632 - Pages: 3
...Constitutional Policing CRJ201 June 28, 2015 Title of Your Essay The 4th amendment of the United States Constitution states “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things seized.” I believe that many cases have been brought to the United States Supreme Court define the constitutionality of the 4th amendment. I strongly believe that this is a fundamental for all law enforcement officers, and officers of the court to follow and strictly adhere to while they are excluding the duties of there occupation. In the case of Weeks vs. United States, police officers entered the home of Freemont Weeks and seized lottery papers which were used for his conviction in court. This seizure of papers was done without a lawful search warrant and done so in violation of the 4th amendment which was the main issue of this case. The evidence seized was used against Mr. Weeks in court and ultimately Mr. Weeks was convicted and sentenced to time in prison. There were several laws that the courts used in determining the outcome of this petition including Boyd vs. United States. “As was there shown, it took its origin in the determination of the framers of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution to provide for that instrument...
Words: 942 - Pages: 4
...Without the exclusionary rule the government would be free to violate the 4th amendment. Exclusionary rule protects citizens from evidence obtained illegally; any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a court of law. Evidence must be collected by abiding by the law and citizens’ rights, whether it be documents or any other incriminating evidence. In the following we will look at a brief historical overview of the development of the exclusionary rule, including its exceptions. Early signs of the Exclusionary Rule are found in 1914 in Weeks v. United States. Weeks was convicted based upon evidence that was seized from his home on two warrantless searches; including evidence that had private papers that compelling in his case. The...
Words: 835 - Pages: 4
...Chimel vs. California Supreme Court of the United States 395 U.S. 752 1969 Issue: If a person who is permitted by law arrested with a warrant, an unauthorized search of a person’s house against its fourth amendment? Facts: Police officers came to defendant Chimels home with an arrest warrant for an apparent robbery. Police officers enter the home with the permission of Chimels wife while they waited for defendant to get home. When the defendant got home they arrested Chimel. During the arrest the police officers asked permission from Chimel to look around the house and Chimel denied the request. The search went on anyway as officers searched the entire house. They went through everything in his home. They asked the wife to remove subjects...
Words: 359 - Pages: 2
...all unreasonable searches and seizures. By including only United States and federal officials in its ruling, the Court still left open the question of whether evidence unlawfully seized could be used in a state criminal court proceeding. (Lisa Pahm) The case Wolf v. Colorado in 1949, due to the effect the Fourth Amendment was discussed for the first time on the states. If the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment united is determined, or made applicable to the states and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. However, the outcome in the Wolf case also made it clear that “prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow evidence being used from an illegal search and seizure. The exclusionary rule was not valid by the states. Ohio, wanted to make their own choice on evidence being illegally obtained if it was allowed to be used or not, there were other states that also felt this way. Mapp’s case was heard by the Supreme Court, in 1960 and they reconsider the decision it had reached in the Wolf case by determining whether the U.S. Constitution did not allow state officials from using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. An Ohio law was put in effect in 1961 due to the Mapp vs Ohio case. References; Lisa Pham (2014) “Mapp v. Ohio” prezi.com Jordan T and Cassie R (2009) Mapp V. Ohio (1961) power point 2. Which view of incorporation do you agree with and why: Total Incorporation, Selective Incorporation, or Total...
Words: 978 - Pages: 4
...Citation. 467 U.S. 431, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984) Parties: NIX, WARDEN OF THE IOWA STATE PENITENTIARY v. WILLIAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Brief Fact Summary. Williams was arrested for the murder of a 10 year old girl whose body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement officials engaged in a search for the child’s body. During the search, in response to an officer’s appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead them to the body. Williams was only read his Miranda rights after he was arrested. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case introduces the inevitable discovery doctrine, which postulates that if evidence will be inevitably discovered, the method in which it is obtained is not important. Facts. Defendant, Williams was arrested and read his rights for the murder of a child after he led law enforcement officials to the body of the child by making statements, in passing, to officials who were conducting the search. While the statements Williams made were not allowed as evidence against him at trial, the body of the child, as well as photographic and medical and chemical test information was admitted. At trial of the matter, the court concluded that, even if Williams had not made the statements to police, the body of the child would have been found within a reasonable time, and that evidence could still be used. Issue. Whether...
Words: 5147 - Pages: 21
