The Ideology Of The Exclusionary Rule
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 first exclusionary rule case on a major note is Weeks v. United States. Under the Fourth Amendment federal
courts and officers are under limitations and restraints when it comes to their power and authority as to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. The Fourth Amendment also protects all people whether they are accused of the crime or not. Weeks v. United States (232 U.S. 383 [1914]) Police entered the home of Fremont weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Officers searched Weeks home on two occasions without a warrant and seized letter and envelopes. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. In this case the question was if the search and seizure of Weeks home violate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the seizure of his residence violated his constitutional rights. Also the court help that the government refusal to return his possessions violated his rights. Week’s private documents that were seized and held as evidence against citizens would mean that the protection of the Fourth Amendment stating the right to be secure against such things would be of no value. This is was the first application that became known as the exclusionary rule. Many criminal theorists are known to bash the exclusionary rule because they feel like it allows guilty individuals and criminals to get away with crimes that they have committed. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the case. With the exclusionary rule, come exceptions. These exceptions include the Good-Faith Exception, and the Impeachment Exception. When an honest mistake is made during a search and seizure any subsequently obtained evidence will be considered admissible. The respected verdict of two cases led to what is the “good faith” exception. These two cases are United States v. Leon and Massachusetts v. Sheppard. The Supreme Court concluded that evidence obtained in good faith on a defective warrant was admissible.
United States v. Leon (468 U.S. 897 [1984]) A judge issued a search warrant of Leon’s home based on the evidence from their surveillance. Officers recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. He was indicted for violating federal law. A judge then concluded that the affidavit for the warrant was insufficient and did not establish probable cause necessary to issue a warrant. The evidence that was obtained was upheld because the police performed the searched in reliance to the warrant, acting in good faith. This is what became to be known as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
The first exclusionary rule case on a major note is Weeks v. United States. Under the Fourth Amendment federal
courts and officers are under limitations and restraints when it comes to their power and authority as to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law. The Fourth Amendment also protects all people whether they are accused of the crime or not. Weeks v. United States (232 U.S. 383 [1914]) Police entered the home of Fremont weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Officers searched Weeks home on two occasions without a warrant and seized letter and envelopes. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions. In this case the question was if the search and seizure of Weeks home violate the Fourth Amendment. The court held that the seizure of his residence violated his constitutional rights. Also the court help that the government refusal to return his possessions violated his rights. Week’s private documents that were seized and held as evidence against citizens would mean that the protection of the Fourth Amendment stating the right to be secure against such things would be of no value. This is was the first application that became known as the exclusionary rule. Many criminal theorists are known to bash the exclusionary rule because they feel like it allows guilty individuals and criminals to get away with crimes that they have committed. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the case. With the exclusionary rule, come exceptions. These exceptions include the Good-Faith Exception, and the Impeachment Exception. When an honest mistake is made during a search and seizure any subsequently obtained evidence will be considered admissible. The respected verdict of two cases led to what is the “good faith” exception. These two cases are United States v. Leon and Massachusetts v. Sheppard. The Supreme Court concluded that evidence obtained in good faith on a defective warrant was admissible.
United States v. Leon (468 U.S. 897 [1984]) A judge issued a search warrant of Leon’s home based on the evidence from their surveillance. Officers recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. He was indicted for violating federal law. A judge then concluded that the affidavit for the warrant was insufficient and did not establish probable cause necessary to issue a warrant. The evidence that was obtained was upheld because the police performed the searched in reliance to the warrant, acting in good faith. This is what became to be known as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.