SamplesReviewThe Roll of EvidenceBuy essay
← The Pride and PrejudiceThe Five Temptations of a CEO →

Free Example of The Roll of Evidence Essay

The Exclusionary Rule is based on the federal Constitution Law (Bloom, 2003). It protects citizens of the United States from illegal searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. Hence, the rule prevents unreasonable searches and seizures that can be used against a suspect in a court of law.

The law terms in the United States take evidence considering any criminal actions with much seriousness. This is because the evidence is a representation of tangible or intangible information that can prove whether a particular allegation is either true or false during criminal proceedings in a court of law. Before the amendments that enabled inclusion of the Exclusionary Rule, any type of evidence was allowed by the courts. At that time, it did not matter the means used by the law enforcers to obtain the evidence. The Exclusionary rule changed all that. It prohibited forceful searches and seizures by the law enforcement officers.

Type of assignment
Writer level
Title of your paper
Pages
Spacing
Timeframes
Currency
Total price
 

Considering the Exclusionary Rule, the law enforcers banned misusing the powers bestowed to them by the government when gathering evidence. Hence, the drafting of the Exclusionary Rule safeguarded the rights of the defendants. This fulfilled a requirement of the Fourth Amendment, which also protects American citizens from any unreasonable searches and seizures by any government official (Greenhalgh, 2003). Similar to the Exclusionary Rule, any evidence gathered through violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the suspect cannot be used in a court of law.

For example, if the law enforcers search the premises of a suspect without a search warrant and in the absence of a suspect, then the evidence gathered during the operation is not admissible in the court and not used during the trial. However, gathered evidence can be used in the court of law, if there is a valid search warrant, even if a defendant is absent during the search. In case the warrant loses its validity by the time of conducting the search, gathered evidence can still be valid, if the warrant has an affidavit to accompany it. The affidavit will make the warrant valid.

There are various exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. These exceptions conform to the bill of rights as stipulated in the Constitution (Bloom, 2003). At times, the rule is not well understood given its nature of protecting criminals. However, it is necessary to note that a suspect remains innocent until proven guilty by the court of law. The exceptions are as follows.

There is the Independent Source Doctrine exception. This exception was formulated in 1984 in a case of Segura and Colon versus the United States at the Supreme Court. The exception gives a provision for investigating team to include evidence from an independent source in the course of the investigation. The law enforcement officers need to obtain a warrant that will enable seizures of the official records to be combined with the new evidence during the trials. In this situation, the first seizure of the evidence is illegal, but after obtaining a warrant, the second seizure becomes legal. For instance, if a law enforcer photocopies records of an individual suspected of fraud without a warrant, but later returns with a warrant, the evidence will be included during the trials.

The other exception is on Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. This exception was formulated in 1984 in a case of Nix versus Williams. In this exception, the evidence is seizured two times. However, actual physical seizure occurs only once. The physical seizure is illegal, but there exists hypothetical seizure of the same evidence that is not considered illegal (Bloom, 2003). This means that the illegal seizure of the evidence is proved legal by the idea that the same evidence would be required in the near future. This happens when the evidence is found in the area that is being investigated. For instance, the investigating team can get information from a source that leads to acquiring of documents, which can implicate a certain individual of financial fraud. The team may act swiftly by seizing the documents without the owner’s consent. They act without a warrant. However, the team proves to the court that the suspect’s documents will, one way or the other, be useful during the trials. Early seizure helps prevent the suspect from hiding or destroying the documents.

The third exception to the Exclusionary Rule is that of Good Faith. This was added in 1984 by the Supreme Court in cases of Mass versus Sheppard and the United States versus Leon. In this exception, if a law enforcement officer uses a warrant to obtain evidence but later discovers that the warrant was defective, the evidence gathered will still be used in the court of law. This is because of the treatment of defects as honest mistakes, and the officers’ actions are considered to be in good faith. The law enforcer using the defective warrant unknowingly does not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. There are limitations associated with the exception of Good Faith. The defense can prove that the officer is misleading the court by providing false evidence. This shows that it is difficult to validate the good faith argument in case of defective warranty. This can lead to release of the suspect without facing trials.

The Exclusionary Rule is not predicted by the United States Constitution. This is because it was a formulation of the judiciary. The Supreme Court of the United States formulated the Exclusionary Rule as a necessity to assist the judicial process. The Judiciary viewed it as the only avenue that can be employed to enforce the Fourth Amendment protections. Initially, the Supreme Court created the Exclusionary Rule in 1914, in a case of Weeks versus the United States. The created rules applied only to defendants being tried in federal courts. An expansion of the rules was done by the Supreme Court in 1961 in a case of Mapp versus Ohio to protect defendants in state court.

Code: writers15

Related essays

  1. The Five Temptations of a CEO
  2. Alternative Viewpoints
  3. The Pride and Prejudice
  4. New Communications Technologies
Testimonials
View all