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.
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.
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.
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).
(b) Under the “police-created exigency” doctrine, which lower courts have developed as an exception to the exigent circumstances rule, exigent circumstances do not justify a warrantless search when the exigency was “created” or “manufactured” by the conduct of the police. The lower courts have not agreed, however, on the test for determining when police impermissibly create an exigency. Pp. 7–8. 2.
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,
I found it useful when learning and understanding the Exclusionary Rule to reference the below chart (National Paralegal College). It explains how evidence cannot be used if it violates the rights given to us under the United States Constitution (National Paralegal College). What the chart does not show is sometimes evidence that was used to other evidence that linked the suspect to the crime committed could possibly be inadmissible because of the Exclusionary Rule, which means your suspect who may have ultimately committed the crime goes free because the evidence cannot be used against him 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.
An attorney can reveal information only regarding the crime the defendant is being accused of not any other information about other crimes that they have not been accused of. The attorney is actually obligated to NOT reveal other information that does not pertain to the crime of accusation. If the attorney believes reasonably that their client is intending to commit a crime they are legally obligated to reveal that