The exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a constitutional rule coined by the U.S Supreme Court to help curb constitutional rights violations. It is a legal rule that prevents the use of unlawfully acquired evidence in the criminal court system. According to Calabresi (2003), the exclusionary rule is a remedy of the Fourth Amendment that has been in service for more than a hundred years. Despite individuals depicting that the rule tames police misconduct in accessing evidence, it also limits judges’ errors in the contemporary world. The rule is widely used in the U.S, and the case between Weeks Vs. the United States in 1914 was the first case that facilitated the establishment and effectiveness of the exclusionary rule. Notably, this paper provides an in-depth discussion on the exclusionary rule, its application in a federal versus state courts in the U.S, and the exceptions perceived regarding the rule.
As described earlier in the context, the Supreme Court of the United States helped initiate the rule years ago. Their initiative was to control illegally acquired evidence without the court’s consent. The introduction of warranties came into perspective as federal agents were forced to have warrants before engaging in evidence acquisition (“Exclusionary Rule,” n.d.). In this regard, most of the exclusionary rule applications that stem out in this context are between the federal and the state courts. Judges apply the rule to countercheck the legality of the evidence. Arguably, any evidence acquired by the police or federal agents must be questioned by judges; if there is the purpose for substantial evidence, the court advocates for a warrant that will support the evidence’s search and seizure. However, if the evidence is not circumstantial, the court is bound to term the evidence as inadmissible and a violation of the Fourth Amendment Act. For example, the case between Wolf versus Colorado State Court established intrusion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment by the police.
The case of Mapp versus Ohio State police in 1961 is a perfect replica of criminal proceedings that depict instances of exclusionary rule application between federal systems versus state courts. In most cases, the police are the state’s property, and the government tries hard to protect its own against the acquisition of illegal evidence or violation of privacy. The police roughly stormed Mapp’s house in search and seizure of any substantial evidence without a warrant. The Ohio State Supreme Court convicted Mapp for seven years (Davies, 2006). However, the U.S Supreme Court overruled the decision under the Fourth amendment. Today, the federal courts are the champions of The Fourth Amendment as the exclusionary rule protects the defendant.
The exclusionary rule has its exception in a court of law. The exceptions incorporate the good faith, independent source doctrine, and inevitable discovery doctrine (“Exclusionary Rule,” n.d.). Good faith involves evidence that is invalid but reasonably relies on search warrants. In most cases, the exclusion of such evidence is limited. For instance, the case between the U.S versus Leon in 1984 saw the acquisition of evidence in good faith. Later on, the Supreme Court ruled the evidence as invalid despite using a search warrant (Gordon, 1985). Independent search doctrine is whereby evidence acquired unlawfully might be admissible later if the same evidence is retrieved legally in a search and seizure process. On the other hand, the inevitable discovery doctrine relates to independent source doctrine. However, the evidence must come from a different line of personnel or investigation that performed the search and seizure process (“Exclusionary Rule,” n.d.). Therefore, it is essential to note that exclusionary rule is a rule that protects a defendant’s rights advocates for constitutionalism and Fourth Amendment rights. However, the rule also has exceptions that facilitate the rule of law and prohibit human rights violations.