Exclusionary rule was premeditated to deter the misconduct of the police. Therefore, the exclusionary rule was a rule setup to facilitate the courts to exclude the introduction of incriminating evidence during the trial upon the proof that the evidence was obtained in breach of the constitutional provisions. This rule allows the defendants to defy the acceptability of evidence by establishing a pre-trial motion to overturn the evidence. If the court accepts the evidence to be brought in during the trial and the jury accepts to convict, the defendant has the option of challenging the decorum of the decision made by the court.
Is the exclusionary rule still relevant in light of the deterrent of civil liability for police officers?
The exclusionary rule is still relevant in this case. The capability of federal civil rights law to carry out the burden is inadequate. State officials who tend to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens should be prosecuted under KU Klux Klan Act of 1983. The fact that there are very few civil rights prosecutors who have the jurisdiction over the misconduct of the police as well as their inadequacy to acquire indictment in most cases indicates the inadequacy of the law as a tool to enforce the compensation scheme.
Therefore, there should be exceptions to the rule. For instance, barring the use of evidence obtained pursuant to the unlawful search should not be seized from being used only if the officers had a reasonable and good faith belief that they acted according to the legal authority. If the police rely on a search warrant which is later discovered to be legally defective, then the evidence that has been illegally seized becomes admissible.
References
Findlaw,. (2014). The Fourth Amendment and the. Retrieved 3 December 2014, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html
OSBORNE, E. (1999). IS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WORTHWHILE?. Contemporary Economic Policy, 17(3), 381-389. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.1999.tb00690.x
