According to "Legal Information Institute" (n.d.), "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule). This rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits. Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future Exceptions to the Rule
There are exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and they are listed as, another source is found that is untainted and had a role in finding the evidence. The next is evidence would have been located anyway, regardless of error or bad evidence. The next exception is that evidence may be used for witness removal on cross examination. While exception is that a witness’s identification of the defendant is not excluded if the witness could identify the defendant before arrested. Grand jury proceedings and evidence involved is excluded, and finally state agents that thought that they were complying with the Fourth Amendment.
Costs and Benefits
Some say that the rational choice model of criminal behavior predicts that if the Mapp ruling did...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document