Exclusionary Rule Essay Example for Free

Exclusionary Rule EssayThe exclusionary ascertain is a legal procedure in the fall in States, which falls down the stairs the report. It protects citizens of the country in making sure that law enforcement officers are direct lawfully and that they abide by all search and seizure laws. It goes so far to protect the citizens of The joined States that if a law enforcement officer extrajudicially obtains evidence it can and most likely will be thrown out of the administration. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the exclusionary traffic pattern, exploring its fallacies and importance while also including the history and evolution of the controversial exclusionary line up. The exclusionary regularise is a rattling important legal principle in the United States and is of import to dungeoning law enforcement and the judicial system in a fair balance with accordance to the United States Constitution.The exclusionary triumph was never even thought about or existed unt il the early 20th century. Samaha (2012) posits that before the exclusionary discover ever existed the only remedy for constitutional violations involving the exclusionary convening were private lawsuits. The framers of the constitution had it in their mind that settle would just handle each flake as they see fitting to the nature of the situation. However this seemed non to work for quitesome time as there was a police misunderstanding of the fourth and 5th amendments figuratively speaking.It wasnt until 1914 when citizens of the United States began to receive their liberty back piece by piece. In the deterrent example of _Weeks v U.S.,_ national officials raided his house in order to obtain evidence in a shimmer case against Freemont Weeks. They had no warrantee and no right to be in his house to seize bothof his possessions. So Freemont spelled and he won, in a way. The Supreme Court ruled to give back his belongings. They did not return contraband and this rule only applied to the federal law enforcement. Which is why this is the first proposition of a trend towards a prominent and well known exclusionary rule.There was galore(postnominal) Judges and regime officials who gloss over refused to side with Justice Edward White in the case of Freemont Weeks. For example, in the case of _People v. Defore_ Judge Cardozo crazy his opinion very well-known and famous. According to Kamisar (2003) in the _People v. Defore_ case Judge Cardozo boasts his opinion very forte and lightenly stating that he would not adopt the exclusionary rule within new(a) York. Kamisar (2003) then goes on to summons Judge Cardozo excluding illegally seized evidence was not the only effective way to enforce the fourthly Amendment. Cardozo was not the last Judge or Justice to disagree with the new trend.The next case to disagree with Cardozo and many other opposing Judges would have to be _Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S._ (1920). Justice Department officers and a U.S. marshall entered the lumber companys office and illegally obtained all of the companys documents. They then went on to subscribe to photo copies and subpoenaed the Silverthornes. When they refused to follow court orders they were taken into custody for contempt of court. Samaha (2012) states that According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the governments search and seizure was an outrage. This case expanded the exclusionary rule introducing the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. This doctrine bans the use of evidence indirectly based on an illegal governmentaction.Even by and by multiple court cases ruled in favor of the exclusionary many state legislatures still were not in agreement with the exclusionary rule. Some legislatures found ways around the fourth amendment. In the case of _Coolidge v. New Hampshire_ New Hampshires legislature was challenged on their warrant issuing practices. According to lynch (2000) New Hampshire law was very controversial in the manner of how warrants were issued. The warrant-issuing power was vested in the Justice of the Peace. Now adjudicate must issue warrants but in the past it was very prominent for Justices of the Peace to fulfill this duty.In New Hampshire they vested the Justice of the Peace within the executive branch of the government. In other words, according to Lynch (2000) the police officers had subverted the Fourth Amendment by issuing search warrants to themselves. The Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshires practices were unconstitutional because the executive branch was issuing warrants to themselves. This practice was very opposing to the idea of checks and balances. This court case was a very historical one in which ruled in application with the separation of powers doctrine. It also supercharge supported the exclusionary rule.One of the biggest cases in the history of the United States and the biggest turning point for the exclusionary rule was in the case of _Mapp v. Ohio._ In this case officers forcibly entered Miss Mapps home without a search warrant or accede and provided a false warrant. Before this case not all states adopted the exclusionary rule. In the dissent by Harlan, Frankfurter, and Whittaker (1961) they stated that the _Weeks_ exclusionary rule should also be enforced against the states. Lafave (2009) also touches on the case quoting the courts statements All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court. Estreicher, S. and Weick, D. P. (2010) make an extremely validand important point stressing that the exclusionary rule is constitutionally required because it was the only effective usable way to enforce the constitutional guaranty. This case is so historically significant because of this ruling. Finally, nearly 50 old age after the _Weeks_ case, the exclusionary rule applied to all states.Even though the rule applied to all states we still did not have every aspect of the rule covered. The Knock and Announce rule was always under controversy as to if the exclusionary rule was applicable in such situations. It wasnt until _Hudson v. Michigan_ when the courts clarified the issue. The police had a warrant to enter _Hudsons_ home and when they knocked and announced their presence they waited a mere three to flipper seconds before come in the premise. Hudson appealed stating his fourth amendment rights were violated because the officers did not follow Knock and Announce procedures. His evidence was suppressed, but later the appeal was reversed by Michigan Court of Appeals. According to Justice Scalia the waiting peak of the officers had no lodge to the discovery of the illegal drugs and weapons.Because of this case the Knock and Announce Rule was clarified by stating that the rule did not have any interest in preventing the government from taking evidence described in a warrant. Tomkovicz (2008) believes that this case was intended to further the restrictions on the exclusionary rule. I have to agree with Tomkovicz in this statement. Gittins (2007) also makes a valid argument in concerning the argument. He Gittins states that during the night hours residents will have a continuing period of time in which they will be able to open the door. However the courts have found that very short periods of time (five seconds) can be reasonable wait times. Courts are still in the handle of clarifying the exclusionary rule although _Hudson v. Michigan_ added some amount of clarity to the issue.Lastly, and the most recent court case concerning the exclusionary rule is _Herring v. U.S._ in which a recalled arrest warrant was executedaccidently. The Coffee County Sheriffs Department were executing a warrant in which the county clerk found to be spotless. Upon arrest they soon learned the warrant was recalled some five months ago. Herring moved to suppress the evidence on the motion that his warrant was rescinded. Josephson (2009) states that the courts generally exclude the exclusionary rule when there are negligent errors amongst recordkeeping.The court denied Herrings motion for suppression because of the Good Faith Clause established in _U.S. v. Leon._ This is a significant case because of how it furthered the interpretation of the exclusionary rule. Josephson (2009) explains how this case interpreted the exclusionary rules main goal which is the deterrence of unconstitutional police conduct. Therefore by the police unknowingly executing what they thought to be an accurate warrant left the evidence applicable in courts.The exclusionary rule is intended to keep law enforcement and federal officials in check with the constitution. But often there is the controversial topic of whether or not the framers of the constitution intended for such a rule. The framers never had any motion to include an exclusionary rule into the fourth amendment. However, Geller (1975) makes an gauzy observation stating that the framers didnt provide any remedies for a violation of the fourth amendment.Which brings me to my next topic of the controversy. Because the framers left no remedies for violations of the fourth amendment, the courts were left to create the exclusionary rule to deter law enforcement from violating citizens rights. Many arguethat this does not in effect deter officers. Geller (1975) argues that there is no significant evidence to support such claims. Geller (1975) also comments on alternatives declaring that Until selective information is available concerning the effect of these alternatives, it is impossible to state with any degree of certainty that these alternatives are either more than effective or less effective than the exclusionary rule.The last major issue I found in Gellers (1975) journal came from a group called Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE). They seem to believe the exclusionary rule is no longer necessary due to the towering degree of police professionalism. AE LE believe police violations are unintentional and because of their high degree of professionalism they act in Good Faith. Therefore petty mistakes allow evidence to be excluded and melt criminals.Until there is a significant study that entails multiple well rounded solutions to the exclusionary rule I do not see any possible alternatives.The exclusionary rule was created almost one hundred years ago. The rule will continue to be reformed and transformed as time goes on. Although there may be a substantial argument pertaining to the issue, we need the exclusionary rule. Undoubtedly the rule has an abundance of justifications compared to its fallacies. It was stated loud and clear by the framers some two hundred years ago what rights we as American people possess. The exclusionary rule is a major backbone of the judicial system of our country, it maintains the system of checks and balances keeping the American peoples rights prevalent and intact.The exclusionary rule is in working o rder, being reformed every day to protect our civil liberty and keep the integrity of our constitution set out by our own framers.BibliographyEstreicher, S. and Weick, D. P. (2010) Opting for a legislative alternative to the FourthAmendment exclusionary rule. UMKC Law Review. 78, 949.Gittins, J. (2007). Excluding the exclusionary rule. Brigham Young University Law Review,2007, 451-481.Josephson, M. (2009). To exclude or not to exclude The future of the exclusionary ruleafter Herring v. United States. Creighton Law Review, 43, 175-203.Kamisar, Y. (2003). In defense of the search and seizure exclusionary rule. Harvard diaryof Law reality Policy, 26(1), 119.Lafave, W. (2009). Recent developments The smell of Herring A critique of theSupreme Courts latest assault on the exclusionary rule. Journal of Criminal Law Criminology, 99(3), 757-787.Lynch, T. (2000). In defense of the exclusionary rule. Harvard Journal of Law PublicPolicy, 23(3), 711. Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal procedure (8th ed.). Belmont, CA West/Wadsworth.Tomkovicz, J. (2008). Hudson v. Michigan and the Future of Fourth Amendment Exclusion Iowa Law Review, 93. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from http//www.law.uiowa.edu/documents/ilr/toBibliographyGeller W. ,Enforcing the Fourth Amendment The Exclusionary Rule and Its Alternatives, 1975 Wash. U. L. Q. 621 (1975).