What Are The Pros And Cons Of The Exclusionary Rule

1291 Words 6 Pages
During any criminal proceeding, the law can either help win the case or lose the case. Every case is unique, whether it is a murder case or a simple assault case. This is why clients need skilled, knowledgeable attorney 's so that they can receive fair trials without police and investigators introducing evidence which may be illegally seized during an arrest. The judge has the ultimate decision whether evidence should be excluded or not, so bringing forth the Constitutional Rights of one 's client is pertinent.
Judge Doe is excluding evidence during trial yet the prosecution asked the judge for an Evidentiary Hearing so they can argue their case on why the evidence should be allowed. The defense will also have their chance to argue their
…show more content…
Constitution, state or federal laws, or court rules inadmissible" (Anderson & Gardner, p. 214). Therefore, by law, the evidence excludes any evidence that was searched and seized illegally during a trial. The exclusionary rule will be somewhat of an uphill battle, therefore, proving the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights were violated during the search and the seized items are therefore illegally obtained. The defendant and other parties, if any at all, will more than likely be called as a witness to prove that the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights were …show more content…
Police are given a standard of morals and ethics they must abide by, for example, understanding and following the law and respecting the U.S. Constitution. "Instead, Fourth Amendment suppression explicitly rests on essentially atexual notions of policy or morality" (Re, pg. 5). Since the client 's liberty was deprived because of the evidence that was illegally obtained, the client is therefore without due process.
Since the client was without due process, which includes themselves, property and protects them from illegal search and seizures. The evidence should have not even been considered in the beginning. The client is and should be protected considering the due process clause and the exclusionary rule go hand in hand with each other ensuring the rights of the client is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Even though each state has adopted their own exclusionary rule and if evidence should be suppressed or not. The Supreme Court ruling should be the one lower courts should follow and not find ways around the U.S. Constitution and ensuring that even though law enforcement officers essentially broke the law, they would be protected under their own standards and procedures. When a defendant 's rights are violated, no matter the crime or charge, they should be protected under the U.S.

Related Documents