Good Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Essay Example

The US Constitution provides some legal principles that will regulate the conduct of the police authorities with respect to the manner of obtaining evidence through search and seizure. Called the exclusionary rule, this doctrine prevents the police authorities from illegally searching and seizing evidence against an accused. An example of this is conducting a search without a valid warrant. The consequences of doing so will constitute to the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained against the accused before the court as a result of a “fruit of a poisonous tree.” The concept of this statement pertains to the illegally obtained evidence that constitutes as a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure. Thus, the evidence or “fruits” obtained in this manner is considered to be tainted with malice and bad faith on the part of the police authorities. The “poisonous tree” refers to the malicious manner by which the evidence was obtained, which the court does not uphold as it violates the basic rights of the accused guaranteed by the constitution against illegally obtained evidence that are presented during the trial.
The exclusionary rule emanates from the Constitutional rights provision of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution requiring that no evidence will be held admissible before a criminal trial if the manner by which it was obtained violates the basic right of the accused against illegal search and seizure. This is founded upon from the Fourth Amendment provision providing that the people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers or effects, against unreasonable search and seizure without the determination of a probable cause (Roots, 2010). It imposes the minimum requirement and standard in the conduct of search and the seizure of evidence by the authorities. The Fourth Amendment provides a constitutional mandate that all evidence must be obtained through a valid warrant to ensure that due process was properly observed to uphold the basic human right of an individual embodied in the Fourth Amendment, and that the reasonableness by which the search and seizure was conducted was determined by a probable cause.
The implication of the exclusionary rule during a criminal trial is that the accused can invoke the same in order to move for the inadmissibility of an illegally obtained evidence before the court in violation of his constitutional rights. However, there are exceptional rules wherein an illegally obtained evidence may be admissible during the trial. This includes standing (whether the movant for the inadmissibility of the evidence has the legal standing to do so), inevitable discovery (it determines whether an evidence found due to an earlier violation would have been inevitably discovered lawfully), attenuation (providing for a chain of a causation proceeding from an unlawful conduct has become attenuated or interrupted by intervening events that remove the taint or malice in the acquisition of the evidence) and good faith (where the officer conducting the search has the belief in good faith that the search warrant being served is valid, thus evidence has been seized lawfully despite some flaws on how the warrant was issued as in there is lack of probable cause). In all these exceptional cases, the exclusionary rule cannot be invoked before the court and the illegally obtained evidence may still be admitted during the trial.
The exclusionary rule, however, has noted by Thaman (2013) to be demoted from a status of a right of an accused to that of a legal remedy. Defendants now use the legal principle of the exclusionary rule in order to prevent using some evidence that is crucial to the conviction. Jurisprudence has evolved in the manner by which the Supreme Court upholds the exclusionary rule by using the balancing test that allows the Supreme Court judges weigh the deterrent benefits of the exclusionary rule against abuse in the conduct of searching for evidence against the costs involved in terms of a lost evidence. While the legal principle of exclusionary rule seeks to protect the basic human rights of an individual against the potential abuse that the government may do in the conduct of search and seizure, the exclusionary rule has sustained some critics because of some identified flaws that constitute a costly litigation process due to lost convictions and the acceptance of plea bargaining (Maclin, 2013). With the critical inquiry in the application of the exclusionary rule in a criminal litigation, the balancing test was scrutinized by critics in weighing the deterrence benefits of the rule with respect to substantial social costs.
Sundby (2010) critically indicated that alternative hearing, such as the conduct of a suppression hearing, can mitigate the costs involved in a full blown trial. This will allow the court to determine whether the police officer conducting the search and seizure acted in good faith, allowing him to substantially explain his actions. This will also enhance the police authorities’ sensitivity in conducting search and seizure with an affirmation of the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. Kritzer and Richards (2005) indicate that the good faith exception has made a tremendous impact on the level of scrutiny of the Supreme Court when applying the exclusionary rule in every unique case, and the conduct of suppression hearing can be a good alternative remedy to the rule’s application to reduce the litigation costs.
Because the main spirit of the exclusionary rule lies within the deterrence rationale, there can be some alternative means by which the Fourth Amendment may be enforced without resorting to the dismissal of the case on the ground of violation of the exclusionary rule. Sunderland (1978) provides that an alternative civil suit may be commenced before a tribunal that will adjudicate the claims and award damages in violation arising out of the Fourth Amendment. Another is to narrow the application of the exclusionary rule in its application to a civil litigation that will support the good faith exception rule.
In conclusion, the exclusionary rule is mainly premised on the principle underlying the legal deterrence in violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens under the Fourth Amendment by the state. However, it has now been used as a remedy to prevent the admissibility of evidence that may be crucial to conviction and to dismiss a case instead of a constitutional right. The dismissal of a case using the exclusionary rule is viewed to be a costly process in the implementation of the criminal justice system and alternative remedies are being considered in order to mitigate the social costs and repercussions of the exclusionary rule in criminal litigations. This includes the application of the good faith doctrine and other exceptions to the exclusionary rule application and resorting to civil suits and suppression hearings before a costly criminal litigation may proceed.

References:

Kritzer, H.M. and Richards, M.J. (2005). The influence of law in the Supreme Court’s search and seizure jurisprudence. Peer Reviewed Articles. 1: 33-55.
Maclin, T. (2013). The supreme court and the fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roots, R. (2010). The originalist case for the fourth amendment exclusionary rule. Gonzaga Law Review. 45 (1): 1-66.
Sundby, S.E. (2010). Mapp vs Ohio’s unsung hero: The suppression hearing as a morality play. Chicago-Kent Law Review 85(1): 255-276.
Sunderland, L.V. (1978). The exclusionary rule: A requirement of constitutional principle. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 69(2): 140-159.
Thaman, S.C. (2013). Exclusionary rules in comparative law. New York: Springer Science.