Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a legislation that prevents the government or police officers from presenting in trial evidence that was obtained in violation of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment protects citizens against illegal searches and seizure by the government. According to the Fourth Amendment, a suspect must be issued with Miranda warnings before they are interrogated in custody. Otherwise, their statements will be invalid in a court law. The Fourth Amendment also states that no warrant to search will be issued to a police officer without reasonable suspicion. The warrant must indicate the places that will be searched and the items or persons that will be seized. This is to protect the suspect’s privacy. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent government officers or policemen from violating the US constitution. According to the exclusionary rule, any evidence collected against the defendant following unlawful detention or arrest is excluded or cannot be used in a court law.

Like many other rules of criminal procedure, the exclusionary rule also has some exceptions. This is especially in civil cases. The exceptions, however, apply differently in different states, or may not apply in other states. One such exception is the exception to tangible evidence(“Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule | Justia,” n.d.). If the police obtain physical evidence from statements issued by a suspect despite the violation of the exclusionary, this evidence can still be used to persecute the suspect in a court trial. This exception is even more applicable if the police can prove that with or without the Miranda warnings, they still would have found the evidence. Critics to this exception have argued that police may intentionally violate the right to Miranda Warnings so that they can get relevant evidence.

Another exception to the exclusionary rule is related to the testimony from a witness. The credibility of the defendant as a witness can be suppressed if the statements issued at trial are inconsistent with the statements obtained from the suspect in violation of the fourth amendment. In addition, a witness that was discovered during the collection of a statement in violation of the fourth amendment can be used to testify against the suspect in a court of law.

Public safety is also a common exception in the exclusionary rule. If the police believe that the suspect is dangerous to the public, for example, that they possess a weapon, they can arrest, search, or interrogate the suspect without issuing a warning. If the police find evidence in the process, for example, the weapon in question, this evidence can be used to prosecute the suspect in a trial.

The independent source doctrine is also an exception to the exclusionary rule. According to this rule, if evidence previously obtained illegally is again legally acquired by an independent party to the case, this evidence is admissible in a court of law.

The significant benefit of the exclusionary rule is that it ensures that before someone is searched or arrested, there is clear evidence of wrongdoing. If this were not the case, there would be incidences of persons being searched, arrested, and persecuted unfairly. As a result, it ensures conviction only by evidence, and the public is protected from pre-judgment and bias treatment by the police. It also prevents violation of private property and ensures that everyone is committed to the law, including the law enforcement officers. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system

The societal cost of the exclusionary rule is that it allows the guilty to be freed on the basis that the correct procedures were not followed during their arrest. It also leaves the responsibility to prove probable cause in the hands of government officers as they must find a reason to take action.

Furthermore, the exclusionary rule demands more money from taxpayers (Jacobi, 2011). It lays out procedures that must be followed before an accused person is arrested. These procedures result in a lot of administrative work that, in the long run, demands higher expenses.

The exclusionary rule aims to preserve the integrity of the judicial system and prevent police misconduct during searches and seizures. It protects the US constitution. The federal and state legislatures can achieve these objectives using alternative means. First, the matter of police misconduct should not only be addressed by the exclusionary rule, but by the entire criminal justice system (Wilson & Alprin, 2017) . Police who violate the law should take responsibility for their action. Second, police can be taken through education that will help to reduce patterns of unwanted police behavior. Additionally, different regional police departments, depending on their environment, can make their own rules that will guarantee constitutional practices in their job.

The exclusionary rule should continue to apply. This is because it protects the public without which, the fate of crime suspects would almost only rely on the hands of law enforcement officers. It does protect not only an individual but also their property. The rule ensures that only those found guilty, as proven by evidence, are convicted. I also support the exclusionary rule because it is inclusive. It makes sure that no one is above the law. The police officers also have to follow the law before a suspect can be prosecuted.

REFERENCES

Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule | Justia. Retrieved 25 February 2020, from https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/exceptions-to-the-exclusionary-rule/

Jacobi, T. (2011). The Law and Economics of the Exclusionary Rule. Notre Dame L. Rev., 87, 585.

Wilson, J. V., & Alprin, G. M. (1971). Controlling Police Conduct: Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule. Law and Contemporary Problems, 36(4), 488-499.