Preview

Exclusionary Rule Essay

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
450 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Exclusionary Rule Essay
Discuss the exclusionary rule and the following three related concepts: fruit of the poisoned tree, inevitable discovery exception, and the good faith exception.

The exclusionary rule has three elements. First, there must be an illegal action by a police officer, or by someone acting as an agent of the police. Second, there must be evidence secured. The third element states that there must be a casual connection between the illegal action and the evidence secured. “Fruit of the poisoned tree, inevitable discovering exception, and the good faith exception” are the three elements I will be collaborating about.

Once an arrest is made, and the defendant is going to court. The courts must recognize if the evidence that was seized was
…show more content…
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States that describes evidence that is obtains illegally. An example of this would be: An officer searched a home and obtain a box with a key in it. Instead of the officer getting a search warrant, which is required, he uses it anyway.

Next, inevitable discovery exception is an abuse exception to the exclusionary rule. The role allows evidence of the defendant’s guilt to be considered inadmissible under this rule, or to be admitted into trial as evidence. The reason for this rule, policemen misconduct is sufficient delayed and the interests to society are better served by putting policemen in the same position, but not worse.
Thirdly, “The good faith exception”, known as faulty warrants, came along with several cases involved in faulty warrants in 1984. People have been mistakenly accused, and arrested for years. Judges polices, and the DEA make mistakes unknowingly. Some do it under destructions. The courts say that if it is in good faith the police have good reasons to believe their actions are legal. Under the original rule, police were responsible for their own violation for the Constitutional law. So far, the new law has been seen for its errors made by judges, or state

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In the legal case (Unites States v Leon) On August 1981, police in Burbank received intel from an informant that Patsy Stewart and Armando Sanchez were selling narcotics from their personal residence. Police began surveillance of their home without a warrant and identified suspects Ricardo Del Castillo and Alberto Leon. Based on their investigation and information obtained from another informant, a warrant was obtained. A search of the residence was conducted, and large amounts of drug paraphernalia were seized. During the preliminary hearing the warrant was found to be invalid due to lack of probable cause. However, the evidence was admissible in court. This case set the precedence for the good faith doctrine.…

    • 401 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    R V Fraser Case Study

    • 1492 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Evidence must be gathered lawfully or else the prosecution is at risk of it not being able to rely upon in any consecutive hearing or trial as a judge could rule that the evidence is unreasonable.…

    • 1492 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Evans (1995), the respondent was stopped because of a routine traffic stop. The officer’s computer indicated that there was a misdemeanor warrant out for the respondent’s arrest. The officer search his car and found marijuana in it, so the officer charged him with possession. The respondent tried to have the marijuana suppressed as evidence since his warrant had been squashed since before the arrest. This was denied because the purpose of the exclusionary rule wouldn't be served if they dismissed evidence that was obtained by error of employees. These employees were not directly associated with the arresting officer. So the arresting officer had no way of knowing that the misdemeanor warrant wasn't valid. Since the error was a clerical error exclusionary rule was not applied to suppress the…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    4rth Amendment

    • 6813 Words
    • 28 Pages

    The case present before us involves the constitutionality of a dog sniff in regards to the 4rth Amendment. The respondent claims that the police officer, a representative of the State of Florida lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The dog used in the operation, Aldo was not reliable since his detector certification had expired. Also, the officer did not maintain a record of his field performance alerts. As a result, the respondent contends that Aldo’s alert was false thereby diminishing the validity of probable cause. On the other hand, the State of Florida counters by arguing that probable cause is a flexible common sense standard and requires only a fair probability and not hard certainties. Moreover, the officer who had trained with the dog is the best judge of the dog’s credibility as opposed to the Court’s especially since law enforcement agencies act with good faith. Consequently, defense counsel moved to suppress the physical evidence as the product of a warrantless search without probable cause. The trial court denied the motion to suppress but made no findings. The respondent then appealed to the Florida First District Court of Appeal. They affirmed. Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The Florida Supreme Court quashed the lower court decision. Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011). The Court scrutinized the case under the totality of the circumstances test established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) and concluded that Aldo’s reliability, was not enough to demonstrate probable cause.…

    • 6813 Words
    • 28 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Arizona v. Gant

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Respondent, Rodney Gant, was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle, but did not decide to suppress the evidence. The court ruled the search to be that incident to an arrest. Respondent was found guilty and sentenced to three-year prison term.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Roy Olmstead was accused of importing and possessing illegal liquors back in 1927. He was later proved guilty by wiretaps installed in his basement. Olmstead tried saying that his 4th and 5th amendment were violated, but in conclusion his 4th amendment rights were not infringed because mere wiretapping does not qualify under a search or seizure. To be searched means that they would physically have to be there searching for something without a warrant that is. They are allowed to do so with a warrant. The vote behind his rights were 5-4 not in his favor. So he was later detained and arrested by the police. In this court case the officials learned a lot about how they should think, they decided that they should not back down in that sort of situation…

    • 160 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    To protect the American peoples 4th Amendment right “against unreasonable searches and seizures” from law enforcement using illegally seized evidence in a criminal trial against them, the exclusionary rule was created. The U.S. Supreme Court deemed any evidence illegally obtained inadmissible in a criminal trial, and any other evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure inadmissible as well. This is known as the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.…

    • 197 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1100 CJ 2012 05s Feb

    • 874 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Under the rules of evidence, what happens when police improperly collect evidence? It can be declared inadmissible.…

    • 874 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Basically the Exclusionary rule as set forth by the US Supreme Court states that any evidence obtained by police through search and seizure, arrest, interrogations and stop and frisk situations or any other evidence despite its relevance can be excluded as evidence. The Weeks v. United States was basically the origin of the Exclusionary Rule in 1914. In Weeks v United States Mrs, Weeks was arrested for shoplifting and attempted to get a note to her husband about this. Law enforcement went to the residence and without a warrant searched the home and found illegal lottery tickets and removed everything in relation to the tickets charging him with a federal crime because there was evidence showing these were handled through the mail. Mr. Weeks attorney filed with the courts this was illegally obtained evidence and should be excluded.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The exclusionary rule is intended to reject prove acquired disregarding a criminal litigant's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment ensures against irrational quests and seizures by law requirement work force. On the off chance that the hunt of a criminal suspect is preposterous, the proof acquired in the pursuit will be rejected from trial.The exclusionary administer is a court-made run the show. This implies it was made not in statutes go by authoritative bodies but instead by the U.S. Incomparable Court. The exclusionary control applies in government courts by goodness of the Fourth Amendment. The Court has decided that it applies in state courts in spite of the fact that the due procedure condition of the Fourteenth Amendment.(The Bill of Rights—the…

    • 875 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Best Essays

    Exclusionary Rule Analysis

    • 2040 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The exclusionary rule is a legal procedure in the United States, which falls under the constitution. It protects citizens of the country in making sure that law enforcement officers are operating lawfully and that they abide by all search and seizure laws. It goes so far to protect the citizens of The United States that if a law enforcement officer illegally obtains evidence it can and most likely will be thrown out of the court. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the exclusionary rule, exploring its fallacies…

    • 2040 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Better Essays

    Probable Cause

    • 2409 Words
    • 10 Pages

    This paper discusses the underlying circumstances to obtaining a warrant, and proving probable cause. Certain exceptions are made by law in some situations, such as searching vehicles. All officers of the law, and court officials are legally obligated to follow all rights reserved by the Fourth Amendment, and without doing so they could jeopardize their case. Investigation must take place before an officer can prove probable cause to a judge, and obtain a warrant. Warrants are necessary documents in apprehending suspects, conducting searches, and seizures. Without warrants, in most cases, evidence will be ruled as inadmissible. There are several ways to prove probable cause to obtain warrants. Without sufficient probable cause a warrant can not be issued to officers.…

    • 2409 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Exclusionary Rule Essay

    • 1095 Words
    • 5 Pages

    To be able to thoroughly discuss exclusionary rule, there has to be some sort of basic knowledge of what it is. Exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. This paper will be discussing how exclusionary rule first came about and how it has evolved into what it is now. So this paper will, in a way, be a timeline of the exclusionary rule. Exclusionary rule was first discussed in the case of Boyd v. US (1886).…

    • 1095 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Exclusionary Rule

    • 326 Words
    • 1 Page

    Deterrence rationale is “the rationale for the exclusionary rule that rests upon the view that, to deter officers from disregarding the constitution, it is necessary to exclude from evidence at trail the evidentiary fruits of illegal police conduct.” (Garland, 2011,p.265) When it comes the applications for the exclusionary rule, “judges are not allowed to be accomplices to illegality by allowing the introduction of illegally obtained evidence.” (Garland, 2011,p.265) The courts have established what is called the “good faith exception” and this is where it was believed that the officers had probable cause to get a warrant.…

    • 326 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Finally, the exclusionary rule excludes illegally seized evidence from federal trials. Originally enacted to protect individual’s rights from official misconduct and to maintain judicial integrity, its purpose is to deter the violation of the fourth Amendment rights by police (2012).…

    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays