The exclusionary rule is a rule that is available to a defendant in a criminal case that is a remedy for an illegal search that violates their Fourth Amendment rights (nationalparalegal.edu.com. n.d.). Furthermore, one of the most important corollaries to the rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Unfortunately, like all rules there are some exceptions to this rule. One of the exceptions is when a police officer has an independent source of knowledge besides that of the fruit of the illegal search; therefore the doctrine will not exclude the evidence that was discovered. The second would be if the evidence find was inevitable then that evidence can be admitted, because it was not an illegal search that cased the evidence to be
…show more content…
United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (criminal.findlaw.com .d.). This case came before the Supreme Court because Weeks involved an appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or any other constitutional justifications (criminal.findlaw.com .d.). Therefore, the Supreme Court changed the conviction of the defendant and then created what is now known as the “exclusionary rule.” Furthermore, it was created to deter police officers from any misconduct and it allows courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being used in a trial if there is no proof that it was obtain properly and according to constitutional provisions. Therefore, it allows a defendant to be able to challenge the admissibility of any evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion in order to suppress the evidence (criminal.findlaw.com …show more content…
Unfortunately, many Justices had states a desire to either abolish the rule or to sharply curtail its operation (law.justia.com n.d). Furthermore, they had strong doubts about how the rule would work as a deterrent as well as have a huge impact on public interest in the values in effective police officers and public safety as a reason to discard the rule entirely. There was also the fact that this rule excludes reliable and trustworthy evidence, even though there a violations was found to be either technical or in good faith. Therefore, this rule can very well disrespect the law and justices sworn to uphold the law and send a guilty person
United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (criminal.findlaw.com .d.). This case came before the Supreme Court because Weeks involved an appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or any other constitutional justifications (criminal.findlaw.com .d.). Therefore, the Supreme Court changed the conviction of the defendant and then created what is now known as the “exclusionary rule.” Furthermore, it was created to deter police officers from any misconduct and it allows courts to exclude incriminating evidence from being used in a trial if there is no proof that it was obtain properly and according to constitutional provisions. Therefore, it allows a defendant to be able to challenge the admissibility of any evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion in order to suppress the evidence (criminal.findlaw.com …show more content…
Unfortunately, many Justices had states a desire to either abolish the rule or to sharply curtail its operation (law.justia.com n.d). Furthermore, they had strong doubts about how the rule would work as a deterrent as well as have a huge impact on public interest in the values in effective police officers and public safety as a reason to discard the rule entirely. There was also the fact that this rule excludes reliable and trustworthy evidence, even though there a violations was found to be either technical or in good faith. Therefore, this rule can very well disrespect the law and justices sworn to uphold the law and send a guilty person