Arguments Against Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. Now imagine how our system would function without the exclusionary rule. A police officer could detain, arrest or search an individual and his property based on bias, a hunch or because they just felt like it, without reasonable cause. If the officer discovered in criminating evidence, it could be freely admitted at the individual’s criminal trial. And that evidence that is found without the search warrant would be eligible even though it was found unlawfully. The officer would have no incentive to comply with Fourth Amendment restrictions. The imprecise possibility of civil law suits or department discipline would not discourage the misconduct of the police.
Allowing the illegally seized items into evidence and using it in the court and upholding convictions based on such evidence, the courts would condone unconstitutional activity. The Fourth Amendment would be effectively nullified. Finally, the exclusionary rule permits the courts to fulfill their historic function as guardians of the Fourth Amendment. The rule allows for
The cops that needed to get search warrants, but were unable to get them would be able to just go to that persons house and just search the place whenever they like and not get in trouble for it. Sure the exclusionary rule might seem hard at the moment and people that know that there can be evidence found in the criminals home are getting pissed off because the court did not issue a search and seizure warrant to find out the full truth about the criminal and put them away for a really long time. So, no I do not think that the exclusionary rule should be overturned and if I was appointed to the Supreme Court and had the option to do so I would not do