Not one person can answer a question about the "exclusionary rule" until they know what is stated in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule go hand in hand. The Fourth Amendment was put into the constitution to limit on the actions of overzealous officers (Peak, 2006). Then, one must understand what is meant by "probable cause." Armed with this information, we can discuss the definition of the exclusionary rule and some of its history. Also, we will list some of the advantages and disadvantages of the exclusionary rule and ask the question should it be abandoned.
The Exclusionary Rule
The Forth Amendment has been under attack and why? Some people believe it is unjust and should be abolished, yet others think that it should just be amended. Will these changes solve the problem? Not likely, there will always be someone who is not happy with the way things are. The reason they are all upset is due to what is in the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule.
The exclusionary rule is defined as follows; the exclusionary rule requires that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded from the governments use in a criminal trial (Peak, 2006).
The Fourth Amendment states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Peak, 2006)."
The exclusionary rule was intended to prevent and or limit the extreme behavior of the police. It is there to protect the privacy of the citizens. It the police don't have a warrant then they have no right under the law to search you home or property. Then there is probable cause, with probable cause it gives the office a little leeway to search without a warrant.
An example is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document