Exclusionary Rule: A Case Study
The exclusionary rule prohibits illegally obtained evidence from being used in a criminal trial (Hall, 2015). Furthermore, the exclusionary rule applies to prevent unconstitutionally obtained evidentiary submissions, and the rule is applicable to items or confessions (Hall, 2015). After reviewing the exclusionary rule I feel it should be applied to illegal arrests too, unless the police obtain sufficient evidence independent of the illegal arrest. In the case of State v. Eserjose police made an illegal arrest of the defendant for second-degree burglary; however, during an interview the Mr. Eserjose was read his Miranda rights, and he chose to waive his rights, ultimately confessing to the burglary (Ma, 2013). Subsequently, Mr. Eserjose’s
attorney filed a motion to suppress his confession, and the court rejected the motion acknowledging that Eserjose’s arrest was illegal, but the confession was admissible under the Fourth Amendment (Ma, 2013). Additionally, the Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the case, and rendered a ruling applying the attenuation doctrine stating the confession obtained by the police was sufficiently removed from the illegal arrest (Ma, 2013). Furthermore, in the case of the United States v. Toscanino, the Supreme Court determined the government’s efforts to bring the accused to trial were outrageous, shocking, and a gross invasion of a defendant’s constitutional rights (Hall, 2015). Traditionally, the Supreme Court has stated the exclusionary only applies to things and not people, unless Toscanino’s principles apply then the defendant may be set free (Hall, 2015).
References
Hall, D. (2015). Criminal law and procedure (7th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning
Ma, J. (2013). STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--SEARCH AND SEIZURE--THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS AND ADOPTS THE FEDERAL ATTENUATION DOCTRINE DESPITE CLEAR STATE PRECEDENT. STATE v. ESERJOSE, 259 P.3D 172 (Wash. 2011). Rutgers Law Journal, 43(4), 747-770.
attorney filed a motion to suppress his confession, and the court rejected the motion acknowledging that Eserjose’s arrest was illegal, but the confession was admissible under the Fourth Amendment (Ma, 2013). Additionally, the Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the case, and rendered a ruling applying the attenuation doctrine stating the confession obtained by the police was sufficiently removed from the illegal arrest (Ma, 2013). Furthermore, in the case of the United States v. Toscanino, the Supreme Court determined the government’s efforts to bring the accused to trial were outrageous, shocking, and a gross invasion of a defendant’s constitutional rights (Hall, 2015). Traditionally, the Supreme Court has stated the exclusionary only applies to things and not people, unless Toscanino’s principles apply then the defendant may be set free (Hall, 2015).
References
Hall, D. (2015). Criminal law and procedure (7th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning
Ma, J. (2013). STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--SEARCH AND SEIZURE--THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT MISTAKENLY INTERPRETS AND ADOPTS THE FEDERAL ATTENUATION DOCTRINE DESPITE CLEAR STATE PRECEDENT. STATE v. ESERJOSE, 259 P.3D 172 (Wash. 2011). Rutgers Law Journal, 43(4), 747-770.