Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement. The exclusionary rule is judge made law and has been around since the beginning of the 1900’s. The Supreme Court ruled that illegal searches conducted by law enforcement officials should not be allowed in court because it was a breach of a person’s fourth amendment. This rule prevents officers from misconduct. Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome.
This amendment restricts their course of action during a criminal investigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). However, it also bans unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of civil litigation (Fourth Amendment, 2013). A search may only be conducted if suspicion is the motivation to do so (Fourth Amendment, 2013). Under the Fourth Amendment, generalized searches are prohibited unless circumstances which place the general public in jeopardy (Fourth Amendment, 2013). If an individual wants to sue regarding a supposed Fourth Amendment violation, they must have a standing (Fourth Amendment, 2013).
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
Exclusionary Rule is also grounded in Fourth Amendment and it is projected to guard people from prohibited searches and seizures. This Rule is also intended give a deterrent and remedy, which is short of criminal prosecution in reply to prosecutors and police who unlawfully collect substantiation in infringement of the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights bound to self-incrimination. This rule also assures the right to counsel (Carrie). The exclusionary rule has 3 elements: unlawful act did by an officer or a person who acts as an agent or police, secured evidence, and informal link between the criminal action and the substantiation secured. There are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
The circumstances mentioned above encompasses self defense, serious offenses against persons and apprehension to name a few, for the sake of this paper we are going to look at when law enforcement uses self-defense and its legality. However knowing the verbatim standard for self defense is important before discussing the cases that will appear later. The federal government defines it as the following under 10 CRF 1047.7 Section A "When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
Others may think the exclusionary rule should not be used to enforce the Fourth Amendment. They feel at times it is necessary for the exclusionary rule to not be used. I can understand their position because they are looking at putting the accused defendant behind bars and make sure they are punished to the fullest. At times without the exclusionary rule, the case in court can succeed and get the result the prosecution and maybe even what the public want. Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity.
Gun Control YourFirstName YourLastName University title 1. History of Legislative Bans on Products & Services in the United States How can a government ban be described? This is a rule or a law that stops something from being done or used (Rosenberg, 2012). Rosenberg also argues that a ban can sometimes be referred to as a prohibition. Proponents of government bans argue that they help in: Improving moral values and standards in the society, reducing crime rate, improving health and also reducing crime rate.
In a country full of violent crime, the United States continues to embody the gun as integral to it's protection and culture. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms, the people must on the contrary protect themselves from those who bear them. In my view, guns give people a false sense of security and are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Guns are a threat to the peace and safety of society. Therefore, since it is unlikely that all guns will disappear in the United States, legislation must be enacted to ban and cease the further manufacture of the types of firearms involved in more violent crime than all others; handguns and assault-weapons.
Mistake of Fact Mistake of Fact is a defence formed by the The mistake of fact defence can be raisd normally if: (a) The mistake was an honest one (b) No offenc would have been committed had the circumstances been as the accused believed them to be Most criminal law systems in developed states exclude mistake of law as a defence, and the Supreme Court of Canada has limited the defence by arguing that 'mistake of fact' must be baed on more than the mere assertion by the accused of the mistake belief. The courts have also been less willing to apply this defenc when an accused makes a mistake dealing with the nature of illegal drugs. In 1992 the offence of sexual assault was amended to restrict the defence of mistake of fact. Section 273.2 of the Criminal Code now states that the accuser's belief that the complainant consented is not a defence if: (a) It arose from the accused's, or (i) self-induced intoxication, or (ii) recklessness or wilful blindness, or (b) the accused did not take the reasonable steps in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to a certain that the complainant was consenting. The defence of Mistake of Fact is sometimes allowed as a valid defence because, although the defendant has committed the actus reus o the offense, the defendant may honestly belive in a set of facts that would prevent him or hr from forming the mens rea required to constitute the crime.