Exclusionary RuleEssay Preview: Exclusionary RuleReport this essayAbstractThe Exclusionary Rule is a very important part of the criminal justice system. It maintains a check to make sure that all evidence is legally obtained throughout the investigative process. Evidence not legally obtained should be barred from court proceedings and not used against a defendant.
What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule, which has been examined and upheld several times by the Supreme Court, maintains that any and all evidence that can be introduced in trial against a defendant must be seized in a legal manner and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. People have the right to be secure in their homes and are protected against illegal searches and seizures by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Congress adopted the Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, on December 15, 1791. The first landmark case that examined the rights afforded to citizens by the Fourth Amendment was the case of Weeks v. US. Freemont Weeks was suspected of mail fraud, a federal offense, by using the mail as a means to sell lottery tickets. Mr. Weeks was arrested and law enforcement officials were sent to his residence to conduct a search. While there, the officers did confiscate incriminating evidence, but they also confiscated some of Mr. Weeks personal belongings. During the initial trial, where Mr. Weeks was found guilty, his attorney asked that the personal belongings that were seized be returned to his client because they had been obtained illegally; the officers conducting the search did not have a search warrant. A Federal Judge agreed that the items were illegally seized and must be returned to Mr. Weeks. Mr. Weeks then appealed his conviction, reasoning that if his personal belongings had been illegally seized that night, then all evidence that was seized that night was done so illegally. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court where Mr. Weeks original conviction was overturned on the basis that the evidence against him had been obtained in an illegal manner. This case and its outcome were the basis for which the modern application of the Exclusionary Rule was formed. The Weeks case changed forever the way that evidence is seized, and the realization that peoples right to due process is being violated if proper warrants are not obtained before search and seizure.
Should the Exclusionary Rule be Abolished?This is a difficult question to answer. The answer to this question depends on which side you are onIf you are an individual rights advocate then your answer will be justice. Their argument is based on the concept that the legal mistake that the police officer made violates a persons constitutional right. Because this mistake of law was made, any and all evidence obtained during the investigation should be inadmissible in court. They cite precedent setting cases that have been decided upon by the US Supreme Court. Their arguments have merit and are based on the notion of government accountability for police agencies across the United States. According to the text, Criminology Today, the author writes, “The system is designed to ensure that no one individual or agency can become powerful enough to usurp the rights
A good example would be the Supreme Court of the US. Justice Jackson v. Brown stated, “[T]he Supreme Court of the United States, in this case, held that an individual’s role as president of a governmental body cannot be the chief factor in any decision that a government decides itself is in favor of the interests of the United States. It’s not a matter of whether you can act without consulting the individual or the system. If an individual wants to be an elected official or a legislator that’s how that works. There are not government departments or agencies or the judicial system that can dictate who the head of a police department should be and who can appoint the governor and vice-president of the state.” Justice Jackson stated,
The people need a government that reflects the values of the people. Those who favor power in government are not, on the surface at least, free riders. That’s a way to think about it. If someone in government is taking over a government department or a company, that person must be accountable for the decision, for its actions, and for its decisions of the day. If you have government agencies that make government decision, then you are part of a government of people who care about it. It’s okay if one or both of them take over those government agencies or if those agencies act in the best interest of everyone.
When you can’t get rid of government, you can’t get rid of someone else.
Justice Jackson pointed to a few examples that are well-documented but not necessarily true.
We have a huge and complex economic system that has become a very powerful tool for control of governments. From President Reagan to the current administration, there’s been enormous wealth transfer. What’s actually going on is that government power is being used to build up and expand the wealth of our communities and it’s being used for more things. While some of the people in charge of this can no longer get rich or make decisions in the most efficient way, others have power on a massive scale. And that power is used for their benefit in ways they don’t anticipate. In other words, if you were to say that there was a $8 trillion national debt, no one in Washington would make an issue out of that. That’s how important that was in their favor.
Justice Jackson also cited another example of that power being used to control the ability of the military to destroy and even kill. From the New York Times:
It is extremely dangerous for the state police to have power to destroy the property that a government employee or contractor or subcontractor or vendor or subcontractor has created and use that destruction to further their political goals. Because the value that the government gets should be not more important than what the taxpayer gets. If they want to make a case to the jury that the government is bad because they want more government money and have lost that money, they’re not going to use that cost to make a case to the jury that government should be replaced by this new, better way that they’re using those money.
Justice Jackson was particularly scathing concerning those who think a government government that is used to use power to make their own decisions is immoral, or corrupt. While there is a number of examples of government violence within the military, a handful of examples of governmental murder actually come closest.
One of the worst examples of government violence would