Criminal Law: Exclusionary Rule

Good Essays
Bradley, C. (2012). Criminal law: Is the exclusionary rule dead? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 1-1323.
This article questions the jurisprudence of the mandatory application of the exclusionary rule. It begins by stating that the Supreme Court intends on limiting the usage of the exclusionary rule, making it only applicable to cases that grossly violate a defendant’s fourth amendment rights. By citing prolific court cases as references, this article backs up this position by showing what has and has not worked in previous cases. In many cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the exclusionary rule is not mandatorily applicable, so long as the police acted as reasonable, well-trained officers or only committed isolated negligence
…show more content…
Mapp v. Ohio and other important exclusionary rule cases are covered within this article. The author appears to be a strong advocate for an individual’s constitutional rights and makes the argument that the exclusionary rule is necessary for the respect of privacy, as outlined by the fourth amendment. According to this article, the exclusionary rule serves as a deterrence for law enforcement which keeps police from illegally obtaining evidence and serves as a recourse for individuals who were subjected to illegal searches and seizures. Thus, the exclusionary rule does not allow for illegal evidence to be used in court which protects judicial integrity. This article is useful to my research because it highlights the argument in favor of the exclusionary rule by providing evidence for its case.
Fourth amendment-exclusionary rule - ninth circuit suppresses evidence based on violation of regulations and policies implementing posse comitatus act-like restrictions. -United states v. dreyer, 767 f.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2014). (2015). Harvard Law Review, 128,
…show more content…
America is the only western country that has implemented the exclusionary rule solely as a deterrence measure. The premise is that the exclusionary rule will deter police misconduct in searches and seizures because of its mandatory usage. The author makes the case to switch from mandatory to discretionary usage of the rule, similar to that of England and Canada. This would put more emphasis on proper administration of justice and deterrence alone. Furthermore, judges would be less worried about the illegality of evidence, allowing guilty individuals to walk free. Instead, judges would feel free to point out police transgressions, making them less likely to make further mistakes and possibly expanding the fourth amendment. This article is pertinent to my research because it gives the laws that other countries have regarding the exclusionary rule and the effectiveness

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Throughout Truth, Error, and Criminal Law Larry Laudan presents aspects of the law that he believes should be changed to maintain an epistemic goal of the criminal justice system. He argues that the court system frequently maintains rules that seek to distribute the verdicts so that we have less false convictions than false acquittals whether these rules will aid the system in seeking the truth or not. One of the primary principles currently in place that he believes should be amended is the “Silent Defendant” rule, as he calls it, which allows the defendant the choice of whether to testify or not, and their choice to not testify cannot cause negative inferences from the jury. He believes that allowing the defendant not to speak as well as…

    • 1496 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One of the advantages of the Exclusionary rule was intended to dissuade police from wrongdoing. The exclusionary rule empowers courts to prohibit implicating proof to be presented at trial until it has been confirmed through the proper routes that the law enforcement agencies obtained it the right way. The exclusionary rule on the other hand becomes a big disadvantage to the police. As a police or a detective, you have to do more and that can reduce your speed in terms of getting all your facts and evidence together for trial. Defendants can use pre-trial motion to eliminate evidence or not being used against them if they think it does not apply to their particular case.…

    • 854 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    On the contrary, Sargent discovered the warrant had been rejected (Stringer, 1996). Supreme Court decided to eliminate the evidence. Exclusionary rules do not apply because of error in police record. Inevitable discovery refers to evidence would have been found without illegal act. For example, Nix v. Williams’s case showed law enforments ' massive search would have found Pamela Powers 's body without Willam 's statement.…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The defendant has the right to be present during the trial to confront the opposing witness. The Sixth Amendment gives the right to counsel, to a lawyer or court-appointed attorney. The Eighteenth Amendment is the protection against excessive bails and fines. This Amendment also protects individuals against cruel and usual punishment (Bohm & Haley, 2014, p. 125). "In 1996, the Supreme Court handed down Whren v. the United States, which prohibits inquiry into police officers' subjective motivations in conducting a search or seizure when there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause on which to base the search" (Yeomans, 2015,…

    • 452 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What Is Probable Cause?

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Miranda rights are his right to remain silent, anything he says can be used against him in the court of law, his right to an attorney, if he cannot afford one then one will be appointed for him, and his right to terminate the interview at any time. This will protect his Fifth Amendment right and avoid his defense attorney from invoking the Exclusionary rule during trial. According to Carmen (2010) “Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a criminal trial against the victim of the illegal search and seizure. The Constitutions does not require this remedy; it is a doctrine of judicial design.” Mr. May’s invokes his Fifth Amendment to remain silent and request an attorney; at this point Cruz and Hamrick have no choice but to hold him over to see a magistrate to a preliminary hearing. During the preliminary hearing the judge will decide if there was enough probable cause to arrest and…

    • 1074 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Again conceding that the majority of courts reject a jurisdictional view of the statute of limitations, Petitioner nonetheless argued that primary policy consideration underlying the statute, which is to limit the government’s power to prosecute citizens for crimes that are based on untimely indictments, counseled in favor of adopting the jurisdictional approach. Additionally, the federal statute prohibited Article III courts from imposing punishment “when the prerequisite of timely indictment is not satisfied.” Finally, a jurisdictional approach was consistent with the principle that criminal statutes should be “liberally interpreted in favor of…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Lander J found there to be four separate circumstances in which a court may be called upon to exercise a discretion to refuse to admit otherwise admissible evidence in criminal proceedings, including the Christie discretion, which is where the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the prejudice to the accused, and the Bunning v Cross discretion where public policy dictates that the evidence should be excluded. The Bunning v Cross discretion is relevant here because the principle stands for the exclusion of evidence in cases where the evidence has been obtained by improper or unlawful means. The third discretion, from R v Swaffield, which concerns confessional evidence, and finally the fourth discretion regarding non-confessional evidence that would be unfair to the accused so as to deny the accused a fair trial, per Driscoll v The…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This ruling prevents government officials from the continuance of unlawfully obtaining evidence and reinforces the Fourth Amendment. It took a liberal court to strike down what was bad law and apply the extension of the Fourth Amendment protection not to property, but to…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Recall Huemer’s earlier argument: while drugs only possibly result in harm to others, there are several legal ways in which one can actually harm others; therefore, drugs should not be prohibited. This argument conflicts with another claim of Huemer’s. He concedes that it is the business of the state to prohibit driving under the influence of drugs. But, like drug use, driving under the influence only introduces the possibility of harm to others. At least in some cases, Huemer evidently believes that the government should regulate risky behavior, even if there may not be negative consequences.…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Insite argued that s. 1 allowed them an exemption from sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substance Act. They argued that the addicts right to safety and life was more important than the illegality of their actions. By ruling in favour of Insite, the Supreme Court not only modified the legislation’s decision against Insite but also modified the Controlled Drug and Substance Act that had been put in place by the government to protect people.They overstepped their bounds allowing the needs of the few to outweigh the needs of the many. Their job is to check the government if what they do is unjust, but how is protecting the majority…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays