Who Established The Exclusionary Rule

As a United States Supreme Court Justice it is our duty to uphold the United States Constitution. It is our responsible to interpret, and understand the meaning of the Constitution. Ultimately, it is also our responsibility to protect the citizens of the United States by upholding the law. That also means we protect them from the very same people responsible for enforcing our laws.
In the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court ruled that any evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure was a violation of the 4th Amendment, which protects Americans from “unreasonable search and seizures.” Because of this ruling all illegal evidence obtained is inadmissible in court. Mapp v. Ohio became a precedent for law enforcement and in a court of law. The ruling officially established the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule was created to protect Americans from our very own law enforcement and courts. The rule was designed to provide a response to the prosecution and police who illegally gather evidence that violates the 5th Amendment right of self-incrimination. As a Supreme Court Justice my main job is to interpret the Constitution. Because the 4th Amendment protects my right and all others from “unreasonable
search and seizures” I agree with the exclusionary rule. That doesn’t mean I necessarily have to like it though. Law enforcement was created to enforce the law.
That means putting away bad guys and preventing crimes. However, there is also the right way and a wrong way to go about that. When law enforcement believes they have a suspect, the law requires they obtain a search warrant to enter a person’s home. It is their responsibility and duty to obtain that warrant by the proper means. If they fail to obtain a warrant and still proceed they are in violation of a Constitutional law. Because they have broken a Constitutional law, and me being responsible for interpreting the law, I have no other choice then to side with the exclusionary rule. No one is above the law. And as enforcers of our laws we need to and have to abide by our written
rules. Public-order advocates may say that the exclusionary rule hinders the police from doing their jobs effectively, and they may be correct. But doing their job properly is very important too. All I ask for is that we follow the rules. And as a Justice, the good-faith exception has my backing 100% As a Supreme Court Justice I would change, because of the exclusionary rule, evidence inadmissible because of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” terminology. However, I would only change the rule pertaining to evidence found that resulted in a different crime. I do believe that all evidence obtained involving the case at hand to be inadmissible. But if law enforcement finds evidence to a completely different crime then that evidence should be used against the suspect. I believe that the “fruit” has nothing to do with “tree.” The police did not unlawfully enter the home looking for evidence to a different crime. They entered looking for very specific material. Because the “fruit” is not part of the original “tree,” an unreasonable search and seizure should not count toward this new evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important legal principle that is aimed at discouraging law enforcement from engaging in misconduct. In other words, the exclusionary rule is effective by preventing unconstitutionally obtained material from police officers into evidence.