Exclusionary Rule Policy
Within this document an in-depth evaluation of the Exclusionary Rule will be presented. This includes the exclusionary rule’s underlying principles, purpose, four basic exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, and the good faith exception. In addition, major benefits and disadvantages will be discussed including alternative solutions, and a personal opinion-position of the exclusionary rule supported by strong arguments and facts.
The Exclusionary Rule is not a part of the Fourth Amendment protection against, unreasonable search and seizures. The rationale behind the judicially created exclusionary rule was for the purpose of deterring law enforcement officers from obtaining information through illegal means. This in return, would alleviate police corruption and violations of individual’s Fourth Amendment Rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule assisted with preventing law enforcement officers from obtaining general warrants and during the 1700s writ of assistance warrants without first establishing probable cause (University of Phoenix, 2010).
Doctrines have been created and implemented into the system, such as the “Fruit of the poisonous Tree” doctrine that coincides with the Exclusionary rule and states all secondary illegally obtained evidence “the fruit” will further be inadmissible in court if found to be linked to the primary illegally obtained evidence “the tree.
Four basic exceptions to the exclusionary rule will be discussed below: the independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, and good faith (U.S. Law, 2010).
1. Independent source:
In the event law enforcement officers enter a premise illegally but in a constitutional manner, and obtain evidence that is not linked to the initial illegal entry that evidence will considered admissible. To the contrary evidence obtained, including evidence in plain view will be excluded from court if that evidence is found to be linked to the unconstitutional search and seizure. In Segura v. United States (1984) police illegally entered Segura’s habitat and seized evidence in plain view. Later a warrant was issued regarding facts that were established prior to the illegal search. The Courts excluded the plain view evidence but allowed the evidence gathered under the warrant to be admissible (University of Phoenix, 2010).
2. Inevitable discovery:
The Supreme Court further ruled that illegally seized evidence will not be allowed in court, but evidence that was considered to be inevitably discovered would be permitted during trial even if the evidence considered inevitable was discovered as a result of being illegally obtained. In Brewer v. Williams (1977) law enforcement officers were transporting a murder suspect of a young girl right before Christmas. The two officers intentionally passed conversations to one another stating “it would be nice for the parents to give their daughter a proper Christian burial.” The suspect hearing this gave a detailed description of the girls where-about. The Court ruled that though the officer’s conduct was considered an illegal interrogation, a search party was approximately two and a half miles from where the young girl’s body lay and would have been inevitably discovered by the searching party (University of Phoenix, 2010).
3. Attenuation
The Courts will allow all illegally obtained evidence to be presented during a trial if and when the connection between the original illegality and the evidence presented have become extremely weak in nature as a result of a duration of time or other cause of action. In a case involving Wong Sun v. United States (1963) narcotics agents illegally entered Mr. Toy’s apartment searching for drugs. No drugs were discovered but incriminating statements were provided one of which led to the arrest of a Mr. Wong Sun. After being released from custody two days later Mr. Wong Sun voluntarily returned to the police department and offered incriminating statements. The Court found this evidence to be admissible in court due to Mr. Wong Sun’s voluntary action and due to the fact the information provided had become so attenuated the evidence dissolved the taint effect (University of Phoenix, 2010).
4. Good faith
The Supreme Court found that when a police officer obtains evidence as a result of following a state statute or local ordinance and a Supreme Court finds that statute or ordinance to be unconstitutional, the evidence will remain admissible in court. The ideology behind this is the fact Courts acknowledge that the officer’s actions were carried out in good faith and not with malice. In Michigan v. DeFillippo (1979) an officer conducted a search incident to arrest after making a motor vehicle stop and requesting identification from the driver which could not be displayed. A local ordinance allowed an officer at that time under these circumstances to arrest individuals who could not display identification. During the search the officer discovered drugs and though the ordinance was later found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment the evidence was still allowed in court (University of Phoenix, 2010).
A few major benefits the exclusionary rule offers are: the rules ability to deter law enforcement officers from committing illegal acts as a means to assist with the prosecution of suspects. The exclusionary rule further reinforces the Due Process of Law as it prevents government officials from ignoring the formal process-procedures the Due Process of Law guarantees. As a result individuals will be less likely to become victimized by having constitutional protections infringed upon, society will reestablish a trust for law enforcement and all branches of the criminal justice system, a vast majority of society in return will be more willing to cooperate with police by offering information, and law enforcement will regain respect by community members including minorities (Hall, 2005).
A detriment the exclusionary rule can cost law enforcement officers is judges removing extremely important evidence from a trial on the grounds evidence was obtained illegally. If an officer makes a critical mistake or does not follow the Due Process of Law, defense can argue the formal process of law was not abided by and the possibility of losing a major case can become prominent. Moreover, losing incriminating evidence creates a secondary victimization for the primary victim and society. Law enforcement officers will automatically appear to be untrustworthy, unintelligent, inadequate, or corrupt to a vast majority of society while the system will appear to be flawed due to its inability to convict wrongdoers (Google, 2010).
When the government violates an individual’s constitutional rights against a member of society, victims need to be compensated. This compensation lessens the effect of victimization and informs all society that the government is attempting to correct a wrong. Many professionals believe the exclusionary rule is a positive means to resolve injustices committed by legal professionals and individuals hired to uphold the law and not break it. Cases like Wolf (1949) and Mapp (1961) did a fantastic job strengthening police obedience (University of Phoenix, 2010).
Officers of the law quickly became aware of the consequences that could arise in the event the Due Process of Law was not followed. But with modernization, contemporary America has implemented more effective remedies for handling Amendment contraventions, such as through the use of civil litigation. A Civil Suit or litigation is just one of the many remedies that occur on a daily basis that involve civilians, law enforcement agents, departments, and the state (University of Phoenix, 2010).
Furthermore, this form of retribution compensates victims by punishing the wrongdoer financially. When a law enforcement officer is held accountable he or she may be forced to pay thousands of dollars in damages and be forced to sell property to cover these damages. Departments and the state may be forced to pay thousands if not millions of dollars. Departments who witness civil litigations are more apt to implement methods designed to prevent this behavior from reoccurring. Departments can provide additional education, training, monitor the actions of the individual officer more closely, and reprimand and reward policy breakers and followers (The Bar Counsel, 2010).
In addition to the exclusionary rule and civil litigations, three theoretical remedies are considered as a way to correct wrongs. First-party remedies “reparation” attempt to restore an injured party to the original state before the actual violation took place. Second-party “disgorgement” returns the violator to their original position before the violation occurred. And third-party remedies develop strategies for preventing, detecting, and deterring any future wrongdoing for the better good of society (University of Phoenix, 2010).
I believe the exclusionary rule has an extremely important place within the criminal justice system. Without the exclusionary rules presence one less rule would exist for the benefit of individuals, society, and the criminal justice system and its employees. The Due Process of Law was created and implemented for the sole purpose of protecting all individuals within United States borders. Realizing the exclusionary rule is a judicially created doctrine and is not a part of the Fourth Amendment guarantee, modernization and judicial interpretations through landmark cases have clearly set a place in the constitution for the exclusionary rule. Both minor and major cases have been dismissed from court as a result of judges excluding evidence and this is not to mention the offering of plea-bargains to individuals that were most likely never candidates for plea-bargains.
Many fundamental elements of the exclusionary rule have been covered within this document. This includes the exclusionary rule’s underlying principles and purpose, exceptions of the rule, such as independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, and the good faith exception. In addition, a few pros and cons including alternative solutions provided by a personal position will be further added. In the end the exclusionary rule to those in favor is a key component that has unlimited benefits while those opposed of the rule believe the rule is just another road block that slows down prosecution.
References
The Bar Counsel. (2010). Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil and Family Proceedings. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/guidance/guidanceonillegallyobtainedevidenceincivilandfamilyproceedings/
Google. (2010). Exclusionary Rule: The Policy Debate. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/1106/Exclusionary-Rule-policy-debate.html
Hall, K. (2005). Encyclopedia: Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-ExclusionaryRule.html
University of Phoenix. (2010). Week two overview. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from University of Phoenix, Week Two, rEsource. CJA353-Interdisciplinary Capstone Website.
U.S. Law. (2010). Online Legal Resource: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/f/Fruit+of+the+Poisonous+Tree
