The Exclusionary Under The Fourth Amendment
Yes, I believe the exclusionary rule is required under the Fourth Amendment.
“In all cases, the search must be conducted when there is probable cause. If an officer fails to execute a warrant before probable cause has dissipated, then any resulting search is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and the fruits thereof are subject to the exclusionary rule. This is true even if the search is conducted within the period of time set by law” (Hall, 2014, p. 411)
The Fourth Amendment, or the Bill of Rights for that matter, is only applicable to the government and not private citizens. The exclusionary rule would not have any merits if a private citizen went into someone’s home and found evidence of a crime while searching it so long as the private
citizen was not acting as an agent of the government (Hall, 2014). Another alternative to the exclusionary rule is based of case law from Florida v. Royer (Hall, 2014). In this case, a legal detention became an illegal arrest when the defendant was taken from a public area of the airport to the police office (Hall, 2014). The evidence obtained by the police from a consent search was subject to the exclusionary rule (Hall, 2014). The court said the detention was legal, supported by reasonable suspicion (Hall, 2014). However, once the police brought the defendant to the police office, the defendant was considered under arrest and there was no probable cause at this point making the arrest illegal (Hall, 2014). As an alternative, the police could have conducted the consent search in the public area, or used K-9 detection, as that option was readily available (Hall, 2014).
Roadblocks can also be another alternative to the exclusionary rule. While probable cause is required for the police to stop a motorist, a roadblock operation does not require this standard (Hall, 2014). The courts have said the roadblocks must implement an impartial system of the vehicles stopped (Hall, 2014). The police can stop every vehicle or every fifth one as an example, even though no probable cause was established for the stop so long as it occurred during the roadblock operation (Hall, 2014).
If a defendant was the victim of an illegal search and seizure there are some other actions besides the exclusionary rule that may be available as alternatives for improper action by law enforcement (Hall, 2014). These defendants can pursue a civil case against the officer and the agency. Depending on circumstances, the officer could also face criminal charges for rights violations and defendants can always request administrative punishment from proper authorities which can result in the officer being terminated from employment and losing their certification (Hall, 2014).
Reference:
Hall, D. E. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure. Retrieved from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/.
“In all cases, the search must be conducted when there is probable cause. If an officer fails to execute a warrant before probable cause has dissipated, then any resulting search is violative of the Fourth Amendment, and the fruits thereof are subject to the exclusionary rule. This is true even if the search is conducted within the period of time set by law” (Hall, 2014, p. 411)
The Fourth Amendment, or the Bill of Rights for that matter, is only applicable to the government and not private citizens. The exclusionary rule would not have any merits if a private citizen went into someone’s home and found evidence of a crime while searching it so long as the private
citizen was not acting as an agent of the government (Hall, 2014). Another alternative to the exclusionary rule is based of case law from Florida v. Royer (Hall, 2014). In this case, a legal detention became an illegal arrest when the defendant was taken from a public area of the airport to the police office (Hall, 2014). The evidence obtained by the police from a consent search was subject to the exclusionary rule (Hall, 2014). The court said the detention was legal, supported by reasonable suspicion (Hall, 2014). However, once the police brought the defendant to the police office, the defendant was considered under arrest and there was no probable cause at this point making the arrest illegal (Hall, 2014). As an alternative, the police could have conducted the consent search in the public area, or used K-9 detection, as that option was readily available (Hall, 2014).
Roadblocks can also be another alternative to the exclusionary rule. While probable cause is required for the police to stop a motorist, a roadblock operation does not require this standard (Hall, 2014). The courts have said the roadblocks must implement an impartial system of the vehicles stopped (Hall, 2014). The police can stop every vehicle or every fifth one as an example, even though no probable cause was established for the stop so long as it occurred during the roadblock operation (Hall, 2014).
If a defendant was the victim of an illegal search and seizure there are some other actions besides the exclusionary rule that may be available as alternatives for improper action by law enforcement (Hall, 2014). These defendants can pursue a civil case against the officer and the agency. Depending on circumstances, the officer could also face criminal charges for rights violations and defendants can always request administrative punishment from proper authorities which can result in the officer being terminated from employment and losing their certification (Hall, 2014).
Reference:
Hall, D. E. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure. Retrieved from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/.