EXCLUSIONARY RULE

Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule

Introduction

A legal principle that evidence collected in violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures may not be used against a person in court. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter the police and prosecutors from illegally collecting evidence. The origins of the exclusionary rule may be traced to 1886, when the Supreme Court in Boyd v. United States held unconstitutional the compulsory production of business papers. In 1914, the Supreme Court's decision in Weeks v. U.S. created that confirmation obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against perverse seizures and searches could not be used against a person in federal court. In 1961, the exclusionary rule was applied to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment in the decision of Mapp v. Ohio. The exclusionary rule was extended to violations of the Fifth Amendment in 1966 in Miranda v. Arizona, which provided protections against self-incrimination for suspects in police custody who were subjected to questioning. This paper discusses the exclusionary rule, why it was created, is the rule necessary today and what do you believe to be the future of the exclusionary rule.

Discussion

For almost a century, the exclusionary rule has been a topic of vigorous debate among legal scholars and practitioners. The exclusionary rule is a judicially recognized legal doctrine that allows the court, in certain situations, to exclude improperly acquired evidence from a criminal trial. Most often, courts invoke the exclusionary rule when suppressing evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure of their “persons, houses, papers and effects.” The exclusionary rule also occasionally operates to exclude evidence that results from violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment prohibits forced self-incrimination and mandates that no person shall be “left without liberty, life, or belongings, lacking due procedure of law,” and the 6th Amendment assures a criminal defendant the right to counsel in certain circumstances. (Yeaton, 2008)

Controversy marks the long history of the exclusionary rule. Proponents of the rule argue that the text of the Constitution supports the broad application of the exclusionary rule and that suppression serves as a deterrent to overzealous authorities who occasionally trample on constitutional principles in the quest to prosecute an alleged criminal. Some supporters of the exclusionary rule even advocate for its expansion, noting that over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the application of the rule such that  it now only applies in select situations. Contrarily, those who criticize the exclusionary rule contend that the framers did not expressly or implicitly authorize the suppression of evidence illegally seized by authorities. Moreover, opponents of the rule allege that it often allows a guilty person to go free, seemingly contradicting principles of justice. Thus, the exclusionary rule remains the topic of a spirited debate that has permeated the American court system at its highest levels. (Alshuler, 2008)

Rationale And Reasoning In Creating The ...