Exclusionary Rule Evaluation

Exclusionary Rule Evaluation

Chris Swygert

Criminal Procedure 364

Gary Weil

April 27, 2015

        The exclusionary rule was made to protect people from police officers abusing their power by conducting illegal searches. The exclusionary rule is part of the Bill of the Rights and it helps cover what the Amendments do not cover. There are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule such as inevitable discovery, the independent source doctrine, and the Good Faith rule. These exceptions are there to bring into reality that police officers make mistakes sometimes and that the evidence obtained should still be used against the criminal. The exclusionary rule can cost for a lot of criminals to get away with crimes because of mishaps or illegal searches. There are also benefits to this rule because it makes sure that police officers don’t abuse their power and conduct searches without proper authorization. The exclusionary rule has both pros and cons to it but its overall position is to protect the people.

        The exclusionary rule was designed to not let evidence in court that was in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights. This rule is a court made rule, meaning that it was created by the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of the rule was to try and stop police officers from conducting illegal searches and seizures that are in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights. It also provides remedies for a defendant whose rights were violated. For officers today it means that they must go obtain a search warrant from a judge before they can do a search and seizure of a person. The evidence found while with a judge approved search warrant shows that there was enough probable cause to do the search and it will also be admissible in court. If a police officer were to conduct a search and seizure without probable cause and without a warrant then that evidence would not be admissible in court.

        There are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule such as the Good Faith rule. This rules is “A reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill-intent and without intention to defraud. The concept of good faith appears in many areas of law, although it is intangible and determined based on the totality of the circumstances rather than some hard and fast rule” (“The Exclusionary Rule”, 2015). This basically means that if a police officer were to get a search warrant and gather evidence then find out that the search warrant was invalid due to an error. Another would be inevitable discovery doctrine which is if the evidence that was found illegally would have been discovered anyway, even without the illegal search or seizure. The independent source doctrine which is when evidence was obtained illegally but was later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure procedure. Another exception would be the attenuation doctrine which is “in cases where the relationship between the evidence challenged and the unlawful search or seizure is too remote and attenuated, the evidence may be purged and be admissible” (“Exclusionary Rule”, 2015). These exceptions are there to overlook certain mistakes that happen to make sure that the evidence can still be used in courts to obtain justice for the victim.