Free Essay On Exclusionary Rule Evaluation

The law enforcement agency has to follow certain rules and regulations which justifies the measures applied to the exclusionary rule. Initially, the purpose of the exclusionary rule was to understand the methodology of evidence collection. In case, the methodology implied was illegal the case could be announced as inadmissible. The exclusionary rule bears no resemblance or similarity to the Fourth Amendment. The fourth amendment specifically gives protection from forceful search and seizure. If the evidence collected has been gathered through illegal means without a search warrant authorized by the judge then the subject has protection under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. The principle of the exclusionary rule states that any evidence would not have an impact upon the court proceedings. The need for this rule arose after a series of events where the police were forced to gather information from illegal sources and under illegal methodology. Consequently, police corruption could be eliminated under the exclusionary rule, and those violations that are possible under the Fourth Amendment could also be minimized.
According to Zalman, the exclusionary rule helped towards the prevention of the establishment of probable cause from the law enforcing agencies by collecting general warrants through the 1700’s writ of assistance (Zalman, 2008). The first example of the Exclusionary Rule was experience in 1921 in the case of Goulded v. United States. According to the Supreme Court the government officials had the audacity to seize contraband, but the seized property could not be presented in court as part of the evidence. This goes on to prove that the exclusionary rule is applicable to evidence that has been provided via illegal search and seizure activities and require a search warrant from the relative authority. The four basic exceptions to the exclusionary rule were initiated as a result of the restrictions placed upon independent sources, inevitable discovery of information, attenuation, and the good faith during a trial (US Law, 2009).
If the independent source identifies that the agency is intervening in a case of illegal property, but the methodology used is constitutional then the process would be considered as admissible by the court. On the other hand, that piece of evidence which is collected in plain view would be kept outside of court hearings. An optimal example of the aforementioned situation would be the example of Segura v. United States in 1984. The plain view evidence was not a part of the court hearings, but that part of the evidence collected after the issuance of search warrant was included (Zalman, 2008). The Brewer v. Williams case of 1977 suspected an individual for the murder of a young girl. The involved officers did not hesitate about speaking of the incident frankly because the suspect gave a detailed description of the girl’s body. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the interrogation was illegal as it was conducted several miles away from the actual crime scene, and there was no physical evidence. Attenuation exception is when the evidence obtained illegal but has the right to be presented during a hearing even if the evidence becomes weak due to the time span. An example of attenuation would be the case of Wong Sun v. the United States in 1963. Narcotic agents invaded the residence of James Toy with the suspect of finding drugs and were unable to do so. However, due to the information available Wong Sun was later arrested.
When an officer collects information because the state or local ordinance claims so, this act is referred to as good faith. For instance; in the case of Michigan v. DeFillippo in 1979 an officer came across an individual who refused to present his identification. According to the law, the officers have the right to arrest such an individual. Moreover, the officers found drugs as a result of the traffic stop. Even though, this was considered as violation of the fourth amendment, the evidence was acceptable in the court hearings. Such exceptions allow for smooth proceedings of the court of law.
One of the major benefits of the exclusionary rules is that it restricts illegal activity to take place by the law enforcement agencies. Another benefit of the exclusionary rule is that they prevent the government officials to by-pass the formal procedure or guarantee an individual in court. However, there are certain drawbacks of the exclusionary rule. One of the major drawbacks is the cost of the removal of illegal information. A trial can be lost if the officers do not follow the formal process of law or if they make an error while collecting information which would eventually result in the argument of the defense attorney who failed to follow the correct process.
Under the specific retribution, the victims are compensated if they demand financial accountability by the perpetrator. In case, the law enforcement agencies are at fault they may cause individuals a loss of thousands of dollars and if civil litigation is charged then the society would be safe, in the long run. I believe the exclusionary rule is effective as far as criminal justice is concerned as it has been successful in creating a method of accountability for the individual within the judicial system. If the exclusionary rule is not taken into consideration, then injustices may frequently happen, and individual rights could be violated. Cases have been dismissed on the basis whether they were legal or illegal if the judge as denounced them to be excluded from court hearings. Hence; the exclusionary rule is required to clarify the law.

Works Cited

Zalman, M. (2008). Criminal Procedure: Constitution and Society (5th ed.). Prentice Hall, MA: author.
U.S. Law. (2009). Online Legal Resource: Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved from http://www.uslaw.com/us