What Is The Exclusionary Rule?

The Fourth Amendment regarding search and seizure has many arguments from the community and from law enforcement; the community feels that there should be stricter laws in place for law enforcement as law enforcement believes that they cannot carry out the protection of the community due to the exclusionary rules for the Fourth Amendment. Has the Fourth Amendment been change to better benefit the community or is it harder to justify law enforcements practice in search and seizure. We have rules that help in search and seizure the first would be the exclusionary rule, and the second is the extension of the exclusionary rule called the fruit of the poisonous tree. Law enforcement also may feel that investigations are hindered from the Fourth
Supreme Court put into law the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900’s. This rule prohibits the use of evidence in a criminal trial when evidence is collected illegally; it gives protection to citizens who have been searched illegally by law enforcement who obtain illegal evidence for a conviction (Shestokas, 2014). The exclusionary rule has an extension called, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (1920). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures (American Law 2008). For example, if law enforcement decided to wiretap a person of suspicions phone for evidence, this evidence would not be able to be used in court due that there was no consent from both parties on the phone. If these two parts of the Fourth Amendment were not implemented law enforcement would be able to search anyone at any time they felt necessary, and would that be fair to the community? No, it would
Law enforcement can use probable cause to search your person and property; how to obtain this would be observation, sight, sound, use of K-9 dogs for smell and information from witnesses are also facts and circumstantial evidence. There is not set amount of information on how much evidence is needed to be probable, once in court the judge will base the finding on the Fourth Amendment, the civilian’s rights, situations and prior cases if any. With reasonable suspicion if you are in a high crime area and you see someone that may have a record and you suspect they have committed a robbery the officer can check the person for weapons. If appointed to the Supreme Court Mapp vs Ohio would not be overturned. Even though many people have been falsely accused of a crime that was committed with the evidence that was collected illegally, I believe that it is still in good standing. I have a good friend whose husband John, who has been incarcerated due to evidence that was used against him that was not his. John rode in a car that was pulled over for an illegal lane change, because of his past convictions they searched the car and found illegal drugs in the car and was arrested. I believe that there could have been more evidence gathered from John, then the only evidence of the paraphernalia that was in the car. The courts could have looked at his current job how