In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule unde0r the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong. The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police ("Oyez: US v. Calandra," n.d.).…
Chapter Four – The Exclusionary Rule Vicente Farias Jose Martinez The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule – Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment cannot be used at trial – The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct – What other purpose does the exclusionary rule have? The Exclusionary Rule …
The court stated that the exclusionary rule also applies to states, meaning that states cannot use evidence gained by illegal means to convict someone. Clark argued that the Fourth Amendment strictly implies that the use of evidence obtained in violation of the amendment is unconstitutional. Furthermore this overturned the Wolf ruling, the Supreme Court had found that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “police incursion into privacy” is incorporate if the right to privacy is incorporated. He also went on explaining the courts rationale based on the connection between the Fourth and the Fourteenth amendment when saying that since the Fourth amendment is a right of privacy and has been declared enforceable through the Fourteenth then it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion. The court believed that if the right to privacy stated in the Fourth amendment is valid with regard to action by the states they so should be exclusionary…
Justice Black also believes the command that no unreasonable searches or seizures be allowed is too little to infer such a large decision. With these differences aside Justice Black feels that along with previous court decisions that the "Fourth Amendment's ban against unreasonable searches and seizures is considered together with the Fifth Amendment's ban against compelled self-incrimination, a constitutional basis emerges which not only justifies, but actually requires the exclusionary…
The definition of the exclusionary rule was a principle of law that illegally obtained evidence may not be admitted in court. The exclusionary rule was one of the few laws the court system had made to enforce the Forth Amendment’s unreasonable search and seizure clause. The many exceptions and alternatives to the rule caused major controversy over why the rule even stands.…
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.…
Explain the exclusionary rule and list the 6 major cases that define the rule. The exclusionary rule is a rule that prohibits the use of evidence or testimony obtained in violation of civil rights liberties and rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The 6 major cases are Weeks vs. United States, Silverthorne Lumber co. vs. United States, Wolf vs. Colorado, Mapp vs. Ohio, Hudson vs. Michigan, Herring vs. United States.…
Supreme Court & Exclusionary rule In the case of Davis v. The United States, the supreme court revisited the exclusionary rule to examine the law enforcement's method of obtaining evidence. The exclusionary rule also covers the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. As stated in lesson 4, “The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent illegal police conduct and to penalize overzealous police officers for illegal searches and seizures” (Rio Salado College, n.d., Role of the Prosecutor and Alternatives to Prosecution). The rule protects individuals from unlawful government conduct and protects them from self-incrimination. The Supreme Court revisited the good faith exception where evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is invalid could later be admissible in court.…
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a…
What the author intends to answer is what the exclusionary rule is and alternatives to the rule that potentially increase societal self-worth and positive reinforcement. This article explains to for the exclusionary rule, “it is a judge made rule of evidence, originated in 1914 by the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States, which bars "the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure.(Wilkey, 216)” What surprises the reader is finding out that the exclusionary rule is not a rule required by the constitution. It is through…
I find that the evidence would still be valid based on the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. The good faith exception states “that If officers had a reasonable, good-faith belief that they were acting per legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, the illegally seized evidence is admissible” (Busby, 2009). The good faith exception was established by a 6-3 U.S Supreme court decision in the United States v. Leon 468 U.S. 897 (1984). The majority opinion, as written by Bryon R. White, was that the exclusionary rule was established to deter law enforcements violations of the 4th amendment warranting against illegal search and seizure. Therefore “reliable physical evidence seized by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate” did not violate the exclusionary rule and the evidence was to be admitted (Kaye, 2011). The good faith exception was reviewed and expanded in Arizona v. Evans 514 U.S. 1 (1995), a case that I feel directly correlates to my decision reference the admissibility of the evidence in the example given. In Arizona v. Evans an officer conducts a legal traffic stop. Upon running the driver’s license the officer discovers an outstanding warrant for arrest. Pursuant to the arrest a search was conduct and marijuana discovered. When charging Evan’s when possession the officers discovered that the warrant had been quashed. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was not a violation of Evan’s 4th Amendment rights since the evidence, though obtained based on an illegal warrant, was legal based on the good faith…
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. It is also a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment. Some exceptions of the exclusionary rule is barring the use at trial of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. Some other exceptions to the exclusionary rule are: (1) a second, unpoisoned/untainted source had a major rule in finding the evidence, (2) the evidence would have been discovered…
The exclusionary rule is for prohibiting illegal evidence in court, this can be a deciding factor in most cases. An example of this is, they can’t fake, or plant evidence.They have to have solid concrete evidence.This rule is part of the fourth amendment, which a lot of people take seriously, these are rights given to all Americans. I agree with this because, everything needs to be done in a proper manner. If the evidence leaves the chain of custody or is collected in an unlawful manner this can be a deciding factor in the case and a guilty person can be set free. Also if anyone can come up with the evidence than an innocent person may be sentenced. So it better to do things the right way first.…
The ideology of the Exclusionary Rule goes back as far as before Untied States gained its own independence. The Exclusionary Rule states that evidence obtained in a violation of the Constitution cannot be used in a criminal trial to prove guilt. Although this rule is not stated in the Constitution, it was established off of the rulings of the Supreme Court. The grey area of the Exclusionary Rule can be found here for that reason. Since the rule was set up based off the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court instead of being written in law, it leaves room for vagueness when trying to realize what classifies as an unconstitutional search.…
The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns,…