Exclusionary Rule And Civil Liability Case Study

The Exclusionary Rule and Civil Liability
Mark McCormick
Kaplan University

­­­­

CJ-299
Professor Donna Yohman
August 30, 2014 In 1914, Weeks v. United States was decided by the Supreme Court. In Weeks, the Court made a landmark decision relating to illegal search and seizure by law enforcement called the Exclusionary Rule. The Exclusionary Rule provided that evidence “illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (Exclusionary Rule, 2010, p. 287). However, it was not until the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio that the Court made the Exclusionary Rule binding on the states
In the case of the Stevens homicide, the author believes several small procedural differences could have been conducted by the police which would have insured the admissibility of evidence and prevented any civil liability. As outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the authority of the police to enter and secure the scene of an emergency is protected by case law. The issue in this case, just as in Mincey, is that once the emergency or exigent circumstance is contained law enforcement must then obtain a warrant to continue the search. In both of these cases the officers continued a further, intrusive, search still acting under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. At the point when there becomes no further threat of injury or destruction of evidence, the officers in this case should have stopped the search until a search warrant was granted by a judge. Upon a search warrant being obtained the admissibility of all evidence subsequently collected would be ensured. This would have also protected the officers against any civil liability they were subject to as a result of an illegal warrantless
Therefore, the Exclusionary Rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was created as an important protection of the Fourth Amendment. This paper has discussed the Exclusionary Rule, fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, and the difference between the two. It has also discussed the civil liability that officers may be subject to for their mistakes and how they may be forgiven from liability if their mistake was objectively reasonable or if it was made in good faith. Lastly, the author has discussed the importance of obtaining a search warrant when available and how this seemingly simple procedural step will prevent the suppression of evidence, as well as, protect the officer and agency against any civil liability. Although many times officers’ conduct searches under the emergency exception of the warrant requirement, it is generally a lackadaisical excuse which can hardly be defended. In modern times with the inception of recent technology it has become quicker and easier to obtain search warrants, either telephonically or by electronic means. Therefore, it should be instilled in officers through academic and field training to always secure consent or a search warrant prior to conducting a search in order to protect themselves and the integrity of the