The exclusionary clause applies on the rules of evidence obtained by unreasonable search or seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It has been upheld by the Supreme COurt that the exclusionary rule serve multiple purposes that are designed to safeguard the general constitutional rights of the people. The rationale for the exclusionary rule is to compel respect to the constitutional guaranty through the most effective means possible such as removing the incentive to disregard it. It also serves the purpose of protecting judicial integrity that ensures that the judiciary will not condone and never become an accomplice of law enforcement misconduct (Tsesis, 2010). The exclusionary clause also helps deter the execution of unreasonable search and seizure by the authorities, making the evidence obtained through this means as inadmissable before the court for being a fruit of the poisonous tree.
An exception to the exclusionary rule is the good faith principle, which was applied by the Supreme Court for the first time in the Herring v. United States, which involves the service of an invalid warrant by the police officers. The court held that for the exclusionary rule to be invoked in suppressing the evidence obtained, the conduct of the authorities must be sufficiently deliberate and culpable. Otherwise, the obtained evidence shall be admissible under the good faith exception. By applying the good faith exception, it was emphasized by the court that the exclusionary rule must be invoked as a last resort instead of being a necessary consequence of the violation of the Fourth Amendment (Henning, 2009). Another exception to the exclusionary rule is the open field exception that argues that evidence obtained on areas that are not part of the person's living space is also exempted from the rule (Cretacci, 2008). The attenuation doctrine is another exception to the rule where the connection between the evidence that was illegally obtained and the means by which such was obtained is remote. Other exceptions to the rule include the independent source doctrine where evidence obtained illegally was made by an independent person through legal means and the inevitable discovery rule in which the evidence will eventually be discovered through legal means.
The debate on the costs and benefits of the exclusionary rule emerged when it has been noted that the exclusion clause will impede the truth finding process in the criminal justice system and will likely set the guilty defendant free. This may implicate the costs incurred for the trial and possible convictions are lost. The benefits of using the exclusionary rule is also apparent which is basically to discourage the government against arbitrary arrests and seizures, as well as to safeguard the fundamental rights of the society as embodied in the US constitution. The rule is a potential deterrent against the government intrusion to the right of the people against illegal arrest and seizures (Hsieh, 2014).
A possible alternative remedy to the rule is deterrence to the commission of illegal search and seizure committed by the police authorities by making them liable for civil damages or torts or making them criminally liable for violating an individual’s civil liberty. The police officer may also be subjected to administrative sanction such as demotion, fines, suspension and even termination from their employment (Lippman, 2016).
It is the opinion of this author that the exclusionary clause is an important procedural law that safeguards the constitutional rights of the people. Without this safeguard on the enforcement of the substantive laws, the government may exercise a sweeping power that can result in the arbitrary and unjust administration of justice. The benefit of the protection given to the people far outweighs the costs that may be incurred in the application of the exclusionary clause. Nothing can be more unjust than the conviction of an innocent person who is a victim of the fruits of a poisonous tree. The exclusionary rule provides a safeguard against unlawful search and arrests, without which the people may be helpless once the government authorities enforce the same without limitation on their authority.
References:
Cretacci, M.A. (2008). Supreme Court Case Briefs in Criminal Procedure. United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Henning, A.C. (2009). Herring v United States: Extension of the Good-Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule in Fourth Amendment Cases. Congressional Research Service.
Hsieh, K. (2014). The Exclusionary Rule of Evidence: Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform. UK: Henry Ling Publishing.
Lippman, M. (2016). Criminal Procedure. Singapore: Sage Publication.
Tsesis, A. (2010). The Promises of Liberty: The History and Contemporary Relevance of the Thirteenth Amendment. New York: Columbia University Press.
