exclusionary rule criticism

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. For example, if a murder suspect was taken in for questioning but not read his Miranda rights, and subsequently confesses to the murder and provides authorities with the location of a victim's body (and the authorities obtain a search warrant and recover the body), neither the confession nor the body can be used against the suspect in criminal proceedings, unless the police can show that a) it was inevitable that the body would have been discovered anyways, b) that an independent source, such as a witness, had informed them of where the body was, c) the connection between the illegally obtained evidence and the subsequently discovered evidence was so weakened or stretched as to remove the "taint" of illegality, or d) the government's conduct was in "good faith.". [5], Chief Justice Mansfield also explained that "If any evidence or confession has been extorted from her, it will be of no prejudice to her on the trial." [10], In 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Bram v. United States, [11] that involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence. [1]. The exclusionary rule as it has developed in the United States has been long criticized. While this The exclusionary rule came about as a remedy for violations of suspects constitutional rights. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection. Justice Potter Stewart exposed the faulty reasoning underlying the objection in 1983: “Much of the criticism leveled at the exclusionary rule is misdirected; it is more properly directed at the fourth amendment itself.

The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. Should the United States keep or abolish the exclusionary rule? In this respect, it is similar to the explicit rule in the Fifth Amendment protecting people from double jeopardy. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.
Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. Judge Benjamin Cardozo, Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals between 1927 and 1932, stated that under the rule, "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." In the case of Florida v. Jimeno , it was found that the evidence found to convict Jimeno, although at first was not admissible, later was found to in fact be admissible since it passed the test of reasonable standards. Some criticize the exclusionary rule as only protecting guilty [3]. [6] Additionally, a defendant could sue to suppress and regain possession of at least some types of illegally seized evidence, in a common law action for replevin. [55] Also in 2014, Professor Richard Re proposed that the Due Process Clause provides an ample basis for the Exclusionary Rule. Boyd was closely limited to its facts, and several years later the Court stated that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony" about wrongful searches and seizures. It could also refer to a prosecutor improperly or intentionally hiding evidence that does not go with their case and could suggest or prove to the judge or jury that the defendant is not guilty or that (s)he is legally obligated to show the defense. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. What are some potential consequences of the exclusionary rule? the executive branch is through the exclusionary rule.

[7] The Fourth Amendment, after all, was partly a reaction against English law including the general warrant and the writs of assistance. Corporations, by virtue of being, also have limited rights under the Fourth Amendment (see corporate personhood). In United States v. Alvarez-Machain , [41] the U.S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. [23] For example, if a defendant is arrested illegally, the government may not use fingerprints taken while the defendant was in custody as evidence. violate criminal procedure, they are reprimanded; they might be punished The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. Roger Roots, "The Framers' Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Mounting Evidence", Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Pennsylvania Bd. Until Schmerber, the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. confesses, the confession cannot be introduced as evidence in the The law in force at the time of the police action, not the time of the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the action is illegal for exclusionary rule purposes. The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues. Some legal historians argue that the Constitution's Framers intended only that victims of unreasonable searches or seizures could file civil lawsuits. These rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. standard, if police believed, for instance, that a search warrant was now apply what is known as the "good faith" exception. Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. [16] The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words".

To access "Answers & Differentiation Ideas," users must now use a Street Law Store account. Certain persons in the U.S. receive limited protections, such as prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U.S. borders.

By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Explain your answer. The exclusionary rule was created to deter officers from violating people's rights, and the Supreme Court considers it an essential component of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. “The proponents of the exclusionary rule have many sound logical arguments. handled quite differently. Critics argue that it does nothing, for example, to protect against an illegal search or a failure to give Miranda warnings that produce no evidence or confession. However, some argue that it is ridiculous that a criminal go free "because the constable blundered."

Exclusionary rule hurts the innocent by protecting the guilty", "Studying the exclusionary rule in Search and Seizure", "Handcuffing America's Fourth Amendment: ERODING THE INTENT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE", "Exclusionary-Rule Fight Moves to Supreme Court", "Resolving the Dilemma of the Exclusionary Rule: An Application of Restitutive Principles of Justice", http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=roger_roots, Evidence seized during a search, where the probable cause for the search was illegally obtained evidence, A confession made by the defendant, prompted by the admission of illegally obtained evidence against him, Evidence derived from information gained in illegal wiretaps. Inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States criminal procedure that permits admission of evidence that was obtained through illegal means if it would "inevitably" have been obtained regardless of the illegality. This decision was later overturned by Katz v. United States in 1967.
Do you agree or disagree with this criticism? The judge noted that many states had rejected the rule, but suggested that the adoption by the federal courts would affect the practice in the sovereign states. It is one of several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, or the related fruit-of-the-poisonous tree doctrine, which prevent evidence collected in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights from being admitted in court.

of Probation and Parole v. Scott, "The Due Process Exclusionary Rule: A new textual foundation for a rule in crisis", "Regarding Re’s Revisionism: Notes on The Due Process Exclusionary Rule", “Farther and Farther from the Original Fifth Amendment: The Recharacterization of the Right Against Self-Incrimination as a 'Trial Right' in Chavez V. Martinez”, "Exclusionary Rule in the American Law of Search and Seizure, The Exclusionary Rule Regarding Illegally Seized Evidence", "The Mysterious Creation of Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rules Under State Constitutions: The Utah Example,", "Opinion analysis: The exclusionary rule is weakened but it still lives", "Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans", Stagg, Tom, Judge, United States District Court Western District of Louisiana, "Fair or Foul?

The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. This means that if the police fail to inform In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated. [28] Although a confession obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible, evidence obtained based on information in the confession is admissible. [42], The Special Operations Division of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to follow a process of parallel construction when launching criminal investigations of Americans based on SOD tips that may be based on warrantless surveillance. This could happen for several reasons. Up until the independence of the United States, the courts of England excluded self-incriminating evidence that was provided as a result of official compulsion, regardless of its reliability. In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States . The Aguilar–Spinelli test was a judicial guideline set down by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant or a warrantless arrest based on information provided by a confidential informant or an anonymous tip.