The Exclusionary Rule And Miranda V. Arizona

The Exclusionary Rule was put in place to prevent the government from using evidence that was gathered illegally in violation of the United States Constitution. Evidence that was obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment are found admissible in court under the Exclusionary Rule, if no exceptions apply. The establishment of the Exclusionary Rule was due to the rulings of several Supreme Court cases where it was found unconstitutional for evidence from an illegal search and seizure to be used against someone in court. The Exclusionary Rule is very important, as the evidence that can or cannot be used during a criminal trial can completely alter the ruling of a case. The Exclusionary
Ohio (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The ruling of Mapp v. Ohio determined that all evidence that is obtained by search and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is admissible in a criminal trial in a state court overruling Wolf v. Colorado, which holds the contrary. The Exclusionary Rule applied not only to the Fourth Amendments protections against search and seizures, but also to the Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona brought the Fifth Amendment into the exclusionary rule and found that if a police fails to inform a suspect of their right to remain silent (read their Miranda Rights), if the suspect confesses, their confession was unlawfully collected and cannot be used as evidence in court. Some of the other cases regarding the good-faith exclusion of the Exclusionary Rule are Arizona v. Evans (1995), Davis v. US (2011) and Herring v. US. In Arizona v. Evans, it was found that evidence obtained by officers who reasonably relied on a search warrant that turned out to not be valid would be included under the good-faith exception, and that the evidence could be used in court. Another Supreme Court case, Davis v. US, ruled that searches conducted while relying on binding appellate precedent would not be included or protected under the Exclusionary Rule, and that evidence collected while relying on an invalid statute would also be admissible. The ruling of
C. (2009, September 17). Good Faith Exception to Exclusionary Rule.
Retrieved March 24, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule
Carlson, M. D. (2009, June 10). Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
Street Law Inc. (n.d.). Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court, Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/461/Miranda__and_the_Exclusionary_Rule
Cornell University. (n.d.). Mapp v. Ohio. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from