The Exclusionary Rule
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The Exclusionary Rule
The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the 4th Amendment to require that law enforcement officers obtain a warrant prior to search, and that said warrant satisfy two conditions (1) probable cause, and (2) particularity. Under the Exclusionary Rule, any evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment will be excluded from trial.
Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383n (1914)
In Weeks, the court examined whether evidence taken from the defendant without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment could be used against the defendant in a court of law. The court held that evidence that was obtained illegally is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. This became known as the Exclusionary Rule. The rationale of the court was that a citizen’s constitutional rights must not be sacrificed in favor of a conviction.
The exclusionary rule requires that law enforcement officers provide prima facie evidence of guilt (reasonable cause) prior to conducting a search and seizure. This rule would serve to curve the tendency of police to plant evidence and thus reduce the number of false convictions, because the number of suspects would be curtailed under the requirements for obtaining a warrant. Therefore, the exclusionary rule would increase the probability of convicting the guilty while protecting the rights of the innocent.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
In Mapp, the defendant was convicted in criminal court based on evidence obtained illegally without a warrant. The court examined the Weeks rule and determined that it was not a rule of evidence but a rule of constitutional origin rooted on the 4th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. Mapp ruled that the exclusionary is enforceable against the states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rationale: A State that admits evidence unlawfully seized does so against the Federal Constitution, which it has a duty to uphold.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
The 4th Amendment does not explicitly require warrants, probable cause, or exclusion of evidence; it only requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. This ambiguity has helped the Court forge a new path and relax the exclusionary rule as applied in Mapp, by allowing it to redefine the tenets of the 4th Amendment.
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)
In Calandra, the court concluded that the exclusionary rule was not tied to the 4th Amendment but was rather a remedy to protect against violations of the 4th Amendment, and lost its effect in federal grand jury proceedings (Miller, 1984). Calandra also made an exception to the exclusionary rule by allowing evidence that was obtained illegally in certain enumerated cases.
People v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980)
In Williams, the court ruled that evidence is not to be suppressed under the exclusionary rule when the officers were acting in good faith, when mistakenly believing they were acting under authority to conduct the search. This later became know as the Good Faith Exception Rule. This exception essentially operates under a police that holds that if it is practicable to get a warrant, get one, or the evidence will be excluded; however, if it is not practicable, then the Good Faith Rule should be applied; more notably, in emergency situations, or in public places like airports, hospitals, or schools.
Costs and Benefits of the Exclusionary Rule
Dharmapala and Miceli (2003) contend that the exclusionary rule is superior to tort liability both in terms of legal outcome and economic efficiency because the harm to the victim in terms of right violations will tend to balance itself out against the social loss of not convicting a guilty defendant. That is, a search makes economic sense if B < pL; where B is the harm to the victim, p is the probability of finding incriminating evidence, and L is the social loss.
Alternative Remedies to the Exclusionary Rule
The most widely proposed alternative remedy to the exclusionary rule is to rely on the reasonableness standard of tort liability, in particular, to allow an action of trespass against the agents that violate the citizen’s rights. Proponents of this idea believe that the threat of tort liability would force the agents to internalize the social costs and benefits of conducting a warrantless search and proceed with caution (Dharmapala and Miceli 2003).
However, there are too many potential problems with this approach, including the burden placed on the victim, and the likely immunity from liability of the offending agents. Moreover, there is also the problem of measuring damages from an illegal search.
Another alternative is the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against the officers that carried out the illegal search, which would have to rely on a self-regulatory mechanism and provide little motivation to comply with the tenets of the 4th and 14th Amendments.
My position on the Exclusionary Rule
The current legal climate is leaning against the exclusionary rule. I think that is wrong, because I believe that the exclusionary rule serves a very important role in defining the scope of law enforcement officers, in limiting their ability to suspend our constitutional rights, and otherwise keeping the police in check. The exclusionary rule fits into the concept of separation of powers, where the judiciary balances out the executive branch of power, and when the opportunity to do so comes in court at the time of the introduction of evidence. Doing away with the exclusionary rule, would compromise our constitutional rights.
Dharmapala, D. & Miceli, T.J. (2003). Search, Seizure and (False?) Arrest: An Analysis
of Fourth Amendment Remedies when Police can Plant Evidence. Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=449340 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.449340
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Miller, Jeremy M. (1984). The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: Leon and
Sheppard in Context. Criminal Justice Journal 7. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=926189
People v. Williams, 622 F.2d 830 (5th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383n (1914)
