Criminal Procedure/CJA 364
University of Phoenix
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation
The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information via judicially sanctioned search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule exempts some evidence even when the seizure or location of the evidence may violate the Fourth Amendment. The rule also provides some benefits and detriments for members of the criminal justice system when gathering evidence or prosecuting offenders. However, the exclusionary rule is an important doctrine to members of the criminal justice system demonstrating a means to introduce evidence in the furtherance of justice.
The exclusionary rule prevents evidence obtained by the criminal justice system in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search or seizure is not allowable to prove the guilt of an accused person in a criminal prosecution. However, the primary purpose of the rule is to deter police misconduct by preventing the gathering of evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Del Carmen, 2010). The rule also strengthens the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment by allowing defendants a means to object to illegally obtained evidence. The rule originally applied to federal courts only. However, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporated the inclusion of state courts for using the exclusionary rule from the Fourteenth Amendment to include the protections of the Fourth Amendment thereby requiring the state courts to provide the protections of the Bill of Rights to defendants. This
References: Del Carmen, R. V. (2010). Criminal procedure: Law and practice. (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage. Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Nix v. Williams. 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Wong Sun v. United States. 371 U.S. 471 (1963).