Deterrence rationale is “the rationale for the exclusionary rule that rests upon the view that, to deter officers from disregarding the constitution, it is necessary to exclude from evidence at trail the evidentiary fruits of illegal police conduct.” (Garland, 2011,p.265) When it comes the applications for the exclusionary rule, “judges are not allowed to be accomplices to illegality by allowing the introduction of illegally obtained evidence.” (Garland, 2011,p.265) The courts have established what is called the “good faith exception” and this is where it was believed that the officers had probable cause to get a warrant.
Good Faith Exception is the exclusionary rule that allows the admission of evidence even if there was some sort of “technical defect in the warrant.” (Garland, 2011,p.266) Just as long as the officer has reasonable belief that the warrant is valid then they fall in the good faith exception. The bad thing about the good faith exception is that it may look like the courts are okaying “rubber-stamp police warrant applications.” (Garland, 2011,p. 266) This also questions the officers reasonable suspicion because if a “magistrate approves a warrant that lacks support how can they say the officer was reasonably trained.” (Garland, 2011 ,p.266) Some states have rejected the good faith exception, the good faith exception applies to only warrant cases and other limited circumstances. Then there is the impeachment exception and this exception applies to the Miranda or the fourth amendment “which allows statements taken in violation of Miranda or the fourth amendment to be used at trial to impeach the testimony of the accused.” (Garland, 2011,p.268) With this exception the courts are able to use illegally seized evidence.” (Garland, 2011 ,p.268) The illegally seize evidence is what they use to try and get the accused to come clean and admit to the crime. Garland, N. M. (2011). Criminal evidence. (6 ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document