The exclusionary rule applies in federal courts of the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900’s. Before the rule was discovered, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the judge found the evidence to be relevant. The good faith exception is just one exception that renders the exclusionary rule inoperable. Evidence seized by private parties is not excluded from trial if the search was not in the direction of law enforcement officers.
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
- 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
Under the Eight Amendment, federal and state criminal laws can’t allow excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. The Amendment doesn’t expressly bar disproportionate sentences. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has indicated that the Eight Amendment bars sentences that are grossly disproportionate. The three groups of persons whom cannot be given the death penalty are people who commit a crime while younger than 18 years of age. (Roper v Simmons, March, 2005).
The source of the exclusionary rule comes from the Supreme Court's 1914 verdict in the case of Weeks vs. U.S. The exclusionary rule basically says that illegally collected evidence will not be permitted in court. The rule was first used in the 1961 case of Mapp vs. Ohio. The exclusionary rule comes from the Fourth Amendment's safeguard against illegal searches and seizure of evidence or belongings. The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence.
A person can either allow a person to harm them or fight and in some cases even kill. The stand your ground rule is very controversial. Many argue that just because a person is being attacked does not give them the right to kill. Although, two wrongs don’t make a right, but when protecting yourself, the only thing that is on a person’s heart is making it out of the situation alive. In my opinion, the rule does not lead to more crime, simply because "There's nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action in terms of pursues and confront”.
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.
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.
The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights). Freedom of speech is a good example of the limitations we have as US citizens because we are not permitted to use that amendment if it affects public safety. For example, we are not allowed to say that we have a bomb in an airplane when it is not true. As long as it does not provoke any other consequences in other people we can use the first amendment. The second amendment works the same way; we have the right to have a gun as long as it does not interfere with public safety,