Ramifications for the police and the public of having an exclusionary rule

In a sense the term "exclusionary rule" is misleading, because there are many exclusionary rules. Some, such as the rule against hearsay, exclude evidence because it is not very reliable. Others, such as a rule prohibiting a witness from testifying if the calling party did not disclose the witness before trial, are sanctions for the failure to comply with a nonconstitutional rule.

Ramifications for the police and the public of having an exclusionary rule

In a sense the term "exclusionary rule" is misleading, because there are many exclusionary rules.

The Exclusionary Rule - LawShelf Educational Media

Some, such as the rule against hearsay, exclude evidence because it is not very reliable. Others, such as a rule prohibiting a witness from testifying if the calling party did not disclose the witness before trial, are sanctions for the failure to comply with a nonconstitutional rule.

While every legal system excludes some evidence deemed irrelevant or untrustworthy, the constitutional exclusionary rule is unusual in rejecting highly probative evidence, often with the consequence of nullifying a meritorious prosecution.

It is therefore not surprising that the exclusionary rule has occasioned sustained and sometimes bitter controversy. A simple example helps to explain both the practical operation, and the controversial nature, of the exclusionary rule. Suppose the police stop a driver for speeding, and in the course of issuing the citation they discover cocaine in the glove compartment of the car.

If the defendant did not consent to the search, and if the police did not have probable cause to believe illegal drugs could be found in the glove compartment, the search would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment.

To invoke the exclusionary rule the defendant would move before trial to suppress the drugs as illegally seized. This motion would be decided by a judge sitting without a jury. If the facts are disputed as they usually arethe parties would be allowed to call witnesses.

If the accused testifies at the suppression hearing, this testimony is not admissible against him at a later trial.

If the judge decides that the search was illegal, the exclusionary rule comes into play and the evidence will be suppressed in the pending case. In our example, the government has no case without the drugs, and the court would have to dismiss the charge.

Note that the defendant who moves to suppress incriminating evidence is usually in fact guilty. Maybe the driver had no idea that someone else had put cocaine in the glove box, or maybe the officer planted it, but the most likely hypothesis is that when there is physical evidence to be suppressed the person seeking suppression is indeed guilty as charged.

Note also that the rule does not automatically result in acquittal. Suppose the police found cocaine in both the glove compartment and the trunk, and the court ruled that the cocaine in the trunk was seized illegally but that the search of the glove compartment was legal.

The suppression of the cocaine from the trunk would not protect the defendant from being convicted for possessing the cocaine in the glove compartment. Note, finally, that the rule does not require returning contraband to the defendant.

If the evidence at issue were lawful to possess, such as a diary or a properly registered firearm, the defendant would be entitled to its return at the close of the proceedings.

Even when contraband is illegally seized, however, the defendant is entitled only to its exclusion from evidence, not to its return.

Ramifications for the police and the public of having an exclusionary rule

Were it otherwise the defendant could be arrested on the courthouse steps for possessing the returned contraband. If the judge grants the motion to suppress, the government would be allowed to appeal before a verdict is entered on the pending charge. If the judge decides that the evidence was not seized illegally, the motion will be denied and the case will be set for trial.

If the defendant is convicted, he will be free to appeal on the ground that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress.

Why does the law permit the guilty to escape justice because the police violated the Constitution? Would it not make more sense to admit the evidence and punish the police by demotion or suspension, or through civil lawsuits?

The standard explanation is that these alternative remedies for constitutional violations have been found, in practice, to be ineffectual. Law enforcement agencies have not shown the willingness to discipline officers whose excesses lead to successful prosecutions.

In civil suits against the police, the damages juries might return for illegal searches, together with the good-faith immunity defense available to the police, have blunted the deterrent force of the tort remedy.

Freeing the guilty is not very appealing, but doing nothing about violations of the Constitution has seemed even worse. Origins and development of the rule The history of the rule reflects this ambivalence. The common law did not allow the exclusion of evidence on account of irregularities in the way in which a party acquired it.

Instead, a citizen wronged by an illegal search could sue the wrongdoers for the tort of trespass. The framers of the Fourth Amendment included the warrant clause to prevent the new government from cutting off the trespass remedy by issuing general warrants—one of the abuses that had incited the revolution.

A decline in the efficacy of the tort remedy coincided with the development of modern police forces in the mid—nineteenth century. Typically the police did not and do not target the rich and powerful for intrusive investigations.

The generally poor, generally uneducated, and often minority-race victims of illegal searches were in a poor position to recruit lawyers to bring suits; they certainly could not count on generous jury verdicts against the police. The Supreme Court recognized the exclusionary rule early in the twentieth century.

Although the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule may have arisen from the then-prevailing view that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination shielded individuals from having their own property used against them as evidence, the early cases soon recognized a Fourth Amendment right to suppress illegally seized evidence even when the party invoking the rule had no Fifth Amendment rights i.

The early cases, however, were limited to federal prosecutions. Criminal law enforcement in the United States is primarily the responsibility of state, rather than federal, officers.

Not untilin the watershed case of Mapp v.Ramifications For The Police Having An Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule According to "Legal Information Institute" (n.d.), "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule).

If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discovered evidence, subject to a few exceptions. Indeed, some commentators have taken the position that the exclusionary rule overdeters, reasoning that because the social cost of illegal searches is modest (the criminal's interest in escaping just punishment is not, on this view, a cost at all), and the loss of good cases is a substantial penalty on the police, that the police will be. The drugs will be excluded as evidence in the case against D in accordance with the Exclusionary Rule. EXAMPLE (2): The police conduct an illegal search of D’s home and find a map showing the location of a well-hidden, remotely located outdoor marijuana field. The police go to the field and seize the marijuana.

If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discovered evidence, subject to a few exceptions.

CJ chapter 4 The Exclusionary Rule.

Origins and development of the rule

STUDY. PLAY. Exclusionary Rule -The Public Safety exception. -creates a rule of law which states that police may rely on state statutes authorizing searches and seizures to gain access and evidence even if that law is later declared unconstitutional.

Ramifications For The Police And The Public Of Having An Exclusionary Rule. Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule According to "Legal Information Institute" (n.d.), "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule).This rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in.

Indeed, some commentators have taken the position that the exclusionary rule overdeters, reasoning that because the social cost of illegal searches is modest (the criminal's interest in escaping just punishment is not, on this view, a cost at all), and the loss of good cases is a substantial penalty on the police, that the police will be.

The drugs will be excluded as evidence in the case against D in accordance with the Exclusionary Rule. EXAMPLE (2): The police conduct an illegal search of D’s home and find a map showing the location of a well-hidden, remotely located outdoor marijuana field. The police go to the field and seize the marijuana.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3
Yahoo ist jetzt Teil von Oath