The Exclusionary Rule and Good Faith Exception

The Exclusionary Rule and Good Faith Exception

The exclusionary rule is rule derived from constitutional law, which prevents the government from using evidence that has been collected and analyzed in violation of the United States Constitution from being used in a court of law. This rule is aimed at ensuring that no person is deprived of property, life, or liberty without due process of law.  The rule restricts compelling an individual to be a witness against himself in any criminal case. The decision established in Mapp V. Ohio that the exclusionary rule is applicable to any evidence gathered from unreasonable seizure or search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The exclusionary rule is also applicable if evidence is gathered by ways in which the government violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and if it violates the Fifth Amendment by gathering indecently elicited self-incriminatory statements. This is a way of providing a disincentive and remedy for criminal prosecution from police and prosecutors who illegally collect evidence.  The rule provides defendants with a defense that does not address if a crime was committed.

Purposes of the Exclusionary Rule

The rule aims at finding the truth by requiring the courts or any other parties to meet the basic requirements. To fulfill its functions, the rule requires courts to have a procedural system, to be fair and work toward a just disposition of cases according to the law (Oaks 1970). The rule is more realistic because it is based on fact-finding so that decisions made by courts are based on evident fiction. It encourages courts to admit and take into consideration only the evidence that seems to be factually pertinent for the disposition of a case.

The exclusionary rule preserves the integrity of the judicial system by excluding illegally obtained evidence. If courts base their decisions on evidence that has been gathered in illegal ways, they would be tainting their dignity and reputation. When courts eliminate tainted evidence, they show the public that they are against illegal actions committed by government agents and that they do not want to rely on such acts while making their decisions. This is a way of legitimizing criminal proceedings and reaffirming the rule of law.

The exclusionary rule deters police misconduct, hence, promoting the integrity of the criminal process. In most of the criminal procedural systems, police officers perform moist of the investigations work, and they are likely to break the rules while trying to acquire evidence. Since the criminal procedure is so vulnerable at the police level, law enforcement officers are discouraged from violating the law when illegally gathered evidence is excluded.

Examples of When Law Enforcement Evidence May Be Suppressed Due To the Exclusionary Rule

If police arrest a person for driving with a suspended license and find a bag of cocaine after conducting a search in his car, the evidence may be suppressed because the police did not have a judicial warrant to conduct the search (Burkhart, 1982).  The police can only conduct the search after obtaining a warrant.

If police officers install a GPS tracking device in the vehicle of a suspected drug trafficker to gather information on how that person distributes the drugs, the collected information will be suppressed by the exclusionary rule. This is because the police officers violated the individual’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.

The Purpose of the Good Faith Exception of the Exclusionary Rule

The good faith exception is used to allow the police to present the evidence they unlawfully obtained into court if the investigating officers acted in good faith while violating the rights of the accused (Cga.ct.gov, 2020). If the police officers made a reasonable mistake while undertaking the search, the evidence they gather about that crime may be admissible. The good faith exception helps prosecutors to use the illegally seized evidence in a trial.

The good faith exception provides an open door to the abuse of the exclusionary rule because it makes the judicial system reluctant to side with criminals. The exception makes it easy for illegally-gathered evidence to be used in trials. Although warrantless GPS tracking is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the information is now being used in court, citing that the police officers acted in good faith. The exception is not protecting rights of all citizens by allowing prosecutors to use illegally-obtained evidence (Bjs.gov, 2020). The good faith exceptions makes the judicial system view the exclusionary rule that is a deterrent  that aims at steering the law enforcement away from procedures that would infringe citizens’ rights. By swallowing the exclusionary rule, the good faith exception makes the law enforcement agencies to predicate their defenses on uncertainty and hide behind immunity.  Most people trying to seek redress find the courts nearly useless after their rights are violated.

References

Bjs.gov. (2020). Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Impact of the Exclusionary Rule Upon the Montana Criminal Justice System. [online] Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=3477 [Accessed 19 Jan. 2020].

Burkhart, W. R. (1982). The effects of the exclusionary rule: a study in California. US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Cga.ct.gov. (2020). Search and Seizure. Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule. [online] Available at: https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS95/rpt/olr/htm/95-R-0478.htm [Accessed 19 Jan. 2020].

Oaks, D. H. (1970). Studying the exclusionary rule in search and seizure. The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 665-757.