Exclusionary Rule Vs Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for the protection of citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Because of this, our legal system requires that a warrant be obtained prior to a search of people or their homes or property. Without this provision, citizens would be subject to invasions of privacy without probable cause.
While the idea behind the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures was well-intentioned, in practice it did not immediately live up to its aims. “For more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still …show more content…
This would be like taking us back to colonial America, when British troops were allowed to raid private homes in search of illegal goods. (Balko) The evidence obtained without a warrant could then be used to convict a person on any number of charges.
In the years since the exclusionary rule was enacted, the Supreme Court has loosened some of the restrictions that were originally imposed by the rule. They have created exceptions to the exclusionary rule that allow for certain specific instances of warrantless searches. Two of the major exceptions to the exclusionary rule are the good faith exception and the inevitable discovery exception.
The good faith exception provides for cases in which “officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective.” In these cases, the evidence which has been seized illegally can be considered admissible. (Cornell) This allows evidence to still be used in a trial even if honest and reasonable mistakes were made in the obtaining of such
While the idea behind the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures was well-intentioned, in practice it did not immediately live up to its aims. “For more than 100 years after its ratification, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants because evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the warrant or reasonableness requirements was still …show more content…
This would be like taking us back to colonial America, when British troops were allowed to raid private homes in search of illegal goods. (Balko) The evidence obtained without a warrant could then be used to convict a person on any number of charges.
In the years since the exclusionary rule was enacted, the Supreme Court has loosened some of the restrictions that were originally imposed by the rule. They have created exceptions to the exclusionary rule that allow for certain specific instances of warrantless searches. Two of the major exceptions to the exclusionary rule are the good faith exception and the inevitable discovery exception.
The good faith exception provides for cases in which “officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective.” In these cases, the evidence which has been seized illegally can be considered admissible. (Cornell) This allows evidence to still be used in a trial even if honest and reasonable mistakes were made in the obtaining of such