Confidential Informants are told to do acts or buy thing that may be illegal, but they are doing it on behalf of the government (Zalman, M. (2011)). The third part is that there has to be a connection between the collected item of evidence and an unlawful act by the officer to get the evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment gives the people protection under the criminal justice system from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also explains how law enforcement should obtain information by search warrants based on probable cause.
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Brandy Alston University of Phoenix Criminal Procedure CJA/353 Professor Joseph Wade April 11, 2012 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Should the exclusionary rule be abolish this question is one not to simple to answer. Many individuals say no other say yes, and for those that do not know what the exclusionary rule is then they do not know their Forth Amendment Right. This makes answering this question harder, the Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment works jointly for the United States and the citizens. The Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution limits the action of official law enforcement and helps keep the public rights from being violated for unreasonable searches or something close in that rang. This paper will define Exclusionary Rule, the rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary rule, the exceptions, cost and benefits and alternative remedies to the Exclusionary Rule and if we should keep or wipe out the Exclusionary Rule.
In line with this, the investigative department requests warrants to search for evidence, but they must be approved by the judicial branch. (Lynch, 1998) Most defenses that invoke the exclusionary rule are based on the lack of or improper application of search warrants. Those that support the continued use of the exclusionary rule argue that there must be this line between the police officers that are often emotionally involved in a case, and an impartial third party that can objectively review the evidence. Without this safeguard, citizens would have little protection from overzealous police officers who could search their homes and persons with almost anything serving as probable cause in their opinion. The fact that officers know that illegally obtained (but true) evidence will quite possibly be thrown out, and therefore dangerous criminals will be freed, will encourage them to follow the proper procedures.
There are two types of search and seizure, one would be when the government will acquire a warrant permitting the measures, and the second are the ones justifiable with no warrant. Another thing under the fourth amendment there are at least six exclusions for the warrant condition, in which a warrantless investigation is justified so this means it is legitimate under the fourth amendment. This is where the plain view doctrine comes in effect. The plain view doctrine one of these reasons will come into play to make a warrantless seizure, the uncovering of fruits, proof, or accessories or contraband to the criminal offense; legally in the area in which they did the search; finding proof in plain view, and to have probable cause to think that the objects are evidence or contraband and is an instrument in the criminal offense. Some of these prerequisites are established in Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
U.S. Supreme Court Search and Seizure: Arizona vs. Gant 1) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person and a person’s property. In order to conduct a search, the police must have probable cause and generally, a search warrant is required in order for the police to search. When law enforcement conducts a search without a warrant, the search is per se unreasonable. This means there is a presumption that the search was unreasonable and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that the search was reasonable and not illegal. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer.
The exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement personnel. The exclusionary rule is a court-made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court. The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts of the Fourth Amendment.
Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense. Justification is when the defendant admits to committing the act in question but claims it was necessary in order to avoid some greater evil. Whereas, excuse is when a defendant claims some personal condition or circumstance at the time of the act was such that he or she should not be held accountable under the criminal law (Schmalleger, Hall,
- cert was granted ISSUE: - Did the FBI violated Katz 4th Amendment Right? (to privacy) HOLDING: - Yes REASONING: - The phone booth should be considered protected when doors are shut but the 4th amend. protects persons not places from unreasonable intrusion. In a public place, a person can have that reasonable expectation (but isn't protected because of plain view) Since the government was electronically listening and recording the conversation, it is constituted as a search & seizure. Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[1] (Constitution, 1789).” b. The flip side is that the Fourth Amendment does permit searches and seizures that are considered reasonable. According to http://criminal.findlaw.com/, in most instances a police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation John Stepney CJA/364 November 5, 2013 Kenneth Overwater Abstract The Fourth Amendment always has protected the three civil rights of liberty, property, and privacy. Under the Fourth Amendment the exclusionary rule was designed to sustain that any evidence that was obtained illegally by government officials is a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights and cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. The reader will be informed of the rationale and purpose of the exclusionary rule and identify exceptions to the rule. It will also analyze the costs and benefits as well as alternative remedies to the exclusionary rule. Exclusionary Rule Evaluation In the 18th century the exclusionary rule under common law did not allow coerced confessions of defendants to be admitted in trial courts.