In 1961 the evolutionary rule was born into the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “The exclusionary rule was set in place to protect the people of this country” . The protection of this rule was put forth against evidence illegally obtained by police. The evidence that was illegally found is violates citizens’ rights of the Constitution. This rule can be good for citizens even if the evidence proves guilt but cannot be used against them because in the matter in which it was obtained. This means the evidence is thrown out of court, and the individual may not be charged if no other evidence exists.
The rules exists if an officer commits an act of illegal search or evidence uncovered without the proper order to do so. The rule also helps in decreasing officers from planting evidence to try to charge a person with illegal charges. The police have ethical standards to follow and must adhere to the Constitutional Rights that protect society. If the police violates the rights of an individual in regards to the Constitution then any evidence obtained at that point is worthless in the court of law.
The evolutionary rule can cause a catch 20 when it comes to which way rule is looked at. In one instance it was put in place to ensure rights of people were followed properly by authority, and not interrupted by illegal action by the police force. In another instance the rule can be looked at as rights trumps truth. If a person has illegal drugs in their possession but the police obtain those illegal drugs without the proper resources for search and seizure then those charges cannot be held up. This scenario can be looked at two different ways. The person who had the drugs in their possession will not get charged because the drugs were found without proper procedures. So a guilty person will not be held accountable for having drugs because of the drugs were found improperly under the law of the Constitution. The main point is rights versus truth.
The argument of the exclusionary rule is whether to charge a person who is guilty with a crime even if the evidence was not obtained properly. Or to worry about whether the evidence was obtained properly for before being used in court no matter if guilt is present at the time.
The exclusionary rule has helped in many cases keep innocent people who had evidence planted against them from going to prison. The rule also has helped guilty people from being charged and relieving them of a guilty crime they had committed. This type of issue can give criminals a complex and have faith that they can get off free of charges if they can prove the evidence against them was obtained illegally.
“There are five Justices of the United States Supreme Court that do not agree with the exclusionary rule” The Justices would rather find other means to protect citizens of illegal search and seizure. The rule is thought by some that it lets the guilty people go free because of evidence obtained illegally.
The other options that the Justices would like to see come into effect is called the admissibility standard. This rule has been implemented by many other countries except the United States. This rule would mean that the evidence that was once considered admissible under the exclusionary rule would be looked at differently. The decision would be made once the severity of the crime was assessed, to what extent the Constitutional rights were violated, and to what regard the admission of the evidence would hold on the court process. Once these stipulations were addressed by the court then the decision of whether to keep the evidence would be made.
Another scenario that is being proposed would be if the court did find the evidence to be thrown out of court then the officer who obtained the evidence would be held accountable. The officer would face criminal activity charges based on violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the punishment would be set to keep this from happening again. In order for the exclusionary rule to be effected the evidence would have to be proven it was obtained illegally. This can be hard to do for the offender, and there has to be solid proof that the evidence that proves guilt was taken without proper search and seizure protocol. It is the offenders’ word against the police officer. There are times officers will lie to keep the evidence from being thrown out if they know for a solid fact the person is guilty.
“The exclusionary rule can cause pressure on the police, and the court system to put guilty criminals in prison, and not be let off by a technicality” . The pressure for obtaining probable cause to obtain evidence by police may be taken lightly to keep the bad people off the streets no matter how the evidence was actually gathered.
“The exclusionary rule will not be used if the evidence that officers had received was done so under good faith” . If an officer has gotten the proper documentation for a search and seizure, but then found out the paper work was not legit the evidence would stand under good faith. The rule is not warranted if the officer believes he is obtaining the evidence under the Fourth Amendment search and seizure laws, but the courts had made the mistake in filing proper paper work for that search. The officer will not be held accountable for the mistake of the courts, and the evidence will stand because it was obtained in the proper process.
Evidence found illegally that would be presented under the exclusionary rule is in admissible. If evidence found that led to other evidence that would not have been found otherwise would also be considered under the exclusionary rule. This is called fruit of the poison tree. The reason for this is that no matter what evidence was found it was still found in violation of the individual’s rights and there could not be used no matter what the outcome would.
There is another way around evidence discarded due to the exclusionary rule. The independent source doctrine allows the evidence to be used later on if that same evidence was obtained properly under the Fourth Amendment seizure and search rules. If the evidence would have been found regardless of the legal search and seizure rule it can be allowed in court as well.
An interesting and strange case that involves “the exclusionary rule is Wilson v. State. In 2010 a man Ronald Wilson had contacted the 911 center to report he found a dead body” . The cops came and suspected that Wilson had killed the man and arrested him on other warrant charges. The investigator on the murder case had fudged a document that told Wilson the examiner had identified several finger prints on the gun clip as his.
The man confessed to murdering the victim and was charged with murder. At trial the exclusionary rule was debated because the investigator used a document and falsely botched it to get a confession. Even though the man confessed and his prints would have been on the gun anyways he still lied using falsifying information on a document to get a confession. He also lied on that document and had Wilson believing the examiner on the case had vouched the prints came back as Wilsons.
The exclusionary rule was tossed around stating that the investigator had intentionally faked the document to coheres The court was debating whether the investigator committed a crime under the exclusionary rule and the Texas court rule of whether criminal charges should be brought against the investigator. The decision was made not to hold the investigator under criminal charges and not the throw out the evidence under the exclusionary rule. The situation of that case was very unusual and every aspect has to be carefully reviewed to come up with the decision that was made for that case. If the man had not confessed and would have been innocent the exclusionary rule may have been used in this case.
Reference
Calabressi, G. (2011). Exclusionary Rule. Harvard Jouronal of Law, 1-9.
Minnison, J. (2014). Exclusionary Rule . Legal Institute, 1-4.
Paulison, M. (2010). Misconduct by Police. The Exclusionary Rule, 1-15.
Rychlak, R. (2010). Replacing Exclusionary Rule. Chicago Kent Law, 1-15.
Volokh, E. (2016). Wilson v. State. Exclusionary Rule Case, 1-5.
