Note also that under such a regime the exclusionary rule would not be particularly unpopular because it would only rarely come into play, as the administrative disciplinary system would prevent most illegal searches from ever taking place.
When weighing the desirability of an exception, the Court has explicitly balanced the likely deterrent benefits against the apparent costs of freeing the guilty. The standard explanation is that these alternative remedies for constitutional violations have been found, in practice, to be ineffectual.
Thus far the Supreme Court has recognized a good-faith exception only when the police reasonably have relied on a warrant issued by a judge, on a statute passed by a legislature, or on a judicial record maintained by a clerk of the court.
Critics of the exclusionary rule usually admit that existing tort remedies are ineffective. The exclusion of eyewitness identification evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, or by unfair suggestiveness in violation of due process, differs from both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment context.
If the reason why suppression motions rarely succeed is that the police violate the applicable rules and then successfully lie about it later, the exclusionary rule would not have accomplished very much.
Conclusion The exclusionary rule persists because there is no credible alternative. Evidence that may be otherwise relevant and admissible but is not admitted and may not be considered in the decision-making process for some reason other than irrelevance.
The suppression of the cocaine from the trunk would not protect the defendant from being convicted for possessing the cocaine in the glove compartment. The burden is on the government to prove that the additional evidence was obtained independently of the compelled testimony.
ScottU. Finally, it is worth noting that tort remedies, which might expose police departments or individual officers to substantial financial liabilities, would be more likely to transfer police perjury from the criminal to the civil courts than to reduce its prevalence.
The "Weeks rule," which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition.
United States in Although the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule may have arisen from the then-prevailing view that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination shielded individuals from having their own property used against them as evidence, the early cases soon recognized a Fourth Amendment right to suppress illegally seized evidence even when the party invoking the rule had no Fifth Amendment rights i.
Law enforcement agencies have not shown the willingness to discipline officers whose excesses lead to successful prosecutions. These developments would not have occurred if the tort remedy had been an effective deterrent.
Even if deterrence is the key to the rule, it hardly follows that the Court has assessed the costs and benefits of exclusion correctly. The beneficiaries of such a proposal are the likely targets of police excess, that is, young men, disproportionately black.
The distinction between testimonial versus other self-incriminating evidence is a matter of continuing debate. Even the liberal Warren Court, however, was reluctant to free the guilty. If the police had an independent source of knowledge of the evidence aside from the fruits of the illegal search, then the doctrine will not exclude the discovered evidence.
Although the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the constitutional basis of the Miranda rules, the Court stopped short of equating Miranda violations with compelled testimony. Because any effective deterrent will benefit guilty and innocent alike in future cases, tort remedies have an advantage over exclusion only to the extent that they compensate innocent victims, which exclusion clearly fails to accomplish.
Instead, a citizen wronged by an illegal search could sue the wrongdoers for the tort of trespass. The framers of the Fourth Amendment included the warrant clause to prevent the new government from cutting off the trespass remedy by issuing general warrants—one of the abuses that had incited the revolution.
In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and was enforced through the Volstead Act. Typically the police did not and do not target the rich and powerful for intrusive investigations.- Having exclusionary rule protects people from illegal unrelated discoveries - Ramifications, what if a dead body was not found because officers dont have the right to search In what significant ways has the original Miranda decision been modified, and what is its long-term outlook, given the shifting composition of judges on the Supreme Court?
Oct 25, · Best Answer: ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE Among the arguments in support of the exclusionary rule4 by its proponents are the following: 1. It deters violations of constitutional rights by police and prosecutors.
A number of studies and testimonies by police officers support this contention Status: Resolved. The exclusionary rule I is the price we pay for the Fourth Amendment The point of Yale Kamisar and other proponents is that, in cases in which the rule operates the police and courts would not.
Ramifications For The Police And The Public Of Having An Exclusionary Rule. Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule According to "Legal Information Institute" (n.d.), "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule).This rule applies to.
Ramifications For The Police And The Public Of Having An Exclusionary Rule. Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule According to "Legal Information Institute" (n.d.), "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule).This rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in.
Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule? Designed to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from introduction at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured .Download