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
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