Unit V Case Study
BCJ-2001
March 29, 2016

Introduction
The exclusionary rule applies to evidence which has been confiscated in infringement of the U.S. Constitution. There have been many alterations to the exclusionary rule and its applications throughout the years. The exclusionary rule, in addition to three court cases, which have had a direct impact on the rule, will be examined in this case study. The court cases are Weeks v. United States (1914), Rochin v. California (1952), and Mapp. Ohio (1961). The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and how it operates is accordance to the exclusionary rule, will also be studied. Additionally, this case study will examine logical searches and how they may have pertained to the three court cases.
Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule is an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court, it is not part of the U.S. Constitution (Dempsey, 2013). When written, the Bill of Rights only applied to “agents of the federal government—not to those of local governments—the Court first applied the exclusionary rule only to federal courts and federal law enforcement officers.” (Dempsey, 2013, p.179) In court cases, the rule has progressed as an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by the Supreme Court, which forbids any irrational search and seizure of a citizen.
Illegally confiscated evidence cannot be utilized against a defendant in a court, as it violates the Fourth Amendment, thus, the evidence can be perceived prohibited (Oaks, 1970). Providing fair trials is a responsibility of the courts, and prosecuting attorney’s would not have a fair advantage by admitting evidence collected was outside the rule of law. The exclusionary rule is a rule created by the courts as a remedy (a type of court requirement of a legitimate right coming about because of an effective civil claim.) and