Essays on Exclusionary Rule

Introduction

Every US citizen has a right not to have their privacy unreasonably intruded into according to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Moreover, under this Amendment, search warrants shall not be issued to law enforcement officers unless there is probable cause that particularly describes the specific place that the police needs to search or the things subject to seizure. In the state of Florida, for example, the requirements of a search warrant are provided under Chapter 933 and include the existence of probable cause, search for only the property specified in the warrant, supported by an affirmation or ...

The exclusionary rule holds that, when the police violate a suspect’s constitutional rights, that suspect has the option of requesting a court to “exclude” or declare inadmissible any evidence that was obtained as a result of the constitutional violation. The exclusionary rule is not a constitutional right but rather a judicial tool established by the Supreme Court in 1914, as a means of deterring police officers and law enforcement officials from violating the Constitution when arresting suspects and conducting criminal investigation (Weeks v. United States, 1914). Up until 1961, the exclusionary rule was only available to defendants in ...

Abstract

This article will examine the validity of arrests made by police officers upon appeal of the defendants claiming that their 4th and 5th amendment rights have been violated by the police officers. This paper will present to cases decided by the US Supreme Court that will explain if the arrests made by the police officers were valid and the issues raised by the defendants in accordance to the rights under the 4th and 5th amendment. There will be a discussion on whether the ruling of the Supreme Court was justifiable. There will also a brief discussion on the exceptions ...

Abstract

The criminal justice system in the United States provides Constitutional guarantees for all who are subject to the laws of the land. The three most controversial aspects of this system today are Search and Seizure, arrest, and interrogations. While these three aspects are the foundation of police action throughout the nation, there are several unresolved problems in how each of these processes is in use today. The presence of the law is not always the same as upholding it. The cases which made the case for the citizens are moving into obscurity with modern variations of the problems making ...

The “exclusionary rule” is one of the most important elements of United States criminal procedure law, but it is not found in the Constitution. Indeed, the exclusionary rule is a court created procedure that allows a judge to declare inadmissible any testimony or evidence presented at trial that was result of or otherwise obtained in violation of the Bill of Rights’ Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments. In other words, while the basis of the exclusionary rule is the Constitution, it is not a constitutional right. Rather the exclusionary rule was created as a means for the court to prevent ...

The paper highlights six prominent cases of their time and causes of seizure and warrant of these cases. The facts involved in cases and courts ruling in making decisions are explained in the paper. It focuses on Mapp v. Ohio, Terry v. Ohio, Tennessee v. Garner, Carroll v. U.S., Graham v. Connor, and U.S. v Leon. According to the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, people have the right to feel secure in their homes and without proper court consent police should not be allowed to breach their personal property. Furthermore, a search warrant is to be issued by ...

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure of property without a warrant. The aim of the amendment is to make sure that the law enforcement agencies do not overstep their mandate when executing their duties. Additionally, the amendment is meant to ensure that the citizens’ right to privacy is protected. The Mapp v. Ohio case brought out some fundamental facts regarding the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the law enforcement officers breached the Exclusionary Act, which is contrary to the spirit of the U.S Constitution. The evidence used against Mapp was obtained illegally; therefore, ...

The United States judicial system offers certain protections for criminal suspects who are at risk of arrest or a search without a warrant. One of the most important safeguards afforded under the U.S. Constitution is the 4th amendment, which prevents government officials from illegally searching individuals or seizing property without following standard procedure. The concept has evolved over time, and the exclusionary rule is now the primary way to defend people from illegal search and seizure by government officials. However, history has shown that this is an ineffective solution because it allows those who would have been convicted to ...

1. Explain in detail the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule is the rule that is generated by the law under the constitutional rights. It does not allow the use of any of the non-legal obtained proof in the trials for criminal under the fourth amendment. It will usually apply for the elimination of the physical evident. The best example of exclusionary rule is stolen property, murder, or weapons that allows the police to catch a break in a case under the rights of the fourth amendment. The exclusionary rule could be under the Fifth Amendment, when no person can ...

Introduction

Criminal law and even general law enforcement have several rules and regulations that are implemented in order to procure a more stable and relatively just and safe environment for the people of a country. The Constitution allows several statutes which determine how criminals and deviants are supposed to be treated. This is important so that their treatment and procedure of treatment serve as a deterrent for the rest of the people, and they are able to understand how truthfully justice has been served. There are several domains of this procedure as described in criminal law and comes under search ...

Introduction

Before this case of Mapp v. Ohio, it was inadmissible in a federal court of law to use evidence that had been obtained in violation of the 4th amendment, if federal officers had obtained that information. On the other hand, in a state court, law enforcement officers – whether federal or state - could take evidence seized in violation of the amendment and present it to the state courts. As a result, someone could be prosecuted criminally in state courts based on evidence acquired in breach of the 4th amendment. Mapp v. Ohio is a benchmark case that led to ...

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, ...

The Role of Due Process and Crime Control Models on Criminal Procedure

Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment states that: (1) a person who is born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the State in which he resides and of the United States, regardless of race, (2) no State has the right to abridge the “privileges and immunities” of any its citizens, (3) no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and (4) every person is entitled to equal protection under the laws of the United States Constitution. Therefore, the rights granted and protected under the Bill of Rights are further ...