Ethical Dilemmas with Tampering Evidence

This paper digs into the rights that we as people have against unlawful search and seizure protected by the fourth amendment. It goes further to discuss the “exclusionary rule” which is based on evidence improperly collected being excluded from court proceedings, and how it should be changed to “tort liability” which focuses on officers acting in good fait so that evidence can still be used in court proceedings which discourages officers to provide faulty statements as well as planting evidence to incriminate a suspect. The reason behind this motive is so that officers will obtain warrants and require them to be more ethically and morally correct when doing search and seizures or obtaining evidence through warrants.

Abstract

The purpose of this bibliography is to explore the ethical dilemmas associated with tampering of evidence by officers such as in this case planting of evidence. Many officers have very strict moral beliefs on what is wrong or to do what is right when no one is looking, but others do not share the same beliefs and instead chose the path of corruption. Corruption can result in a number of things ranging from incarcerating an innocent individual, wrongful death, and can also include lawsuits against officers in the form of perjury. A majority of the complaints that are associated with planting evidence is the violation of peoples human rights, specifically Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects an individual from unlawful search and seizure. Most officers plant evidence in hopes of taking a suspected individual off the streets or when information of an individual is given and officers have no other way of arresting the said person.