Should the Exclusionary Rule Be Abolished?
Should the exclusionary rule be abolished? My answer to that is no. The exclusionary rule is one of the fundamental ways the rights of the all people are protected. Mainly the rule is to protect you from police power. If the exclusionary rule was abolished you will more than likely see police brutality on the rise. Officer’s, Detectives, etc will cut corners and otherwise ignore the basic rights of the people they serve. If the rule was abolished we will see sometimes innocent people put in jail just because the law enforcement officer thought they were a criminal. Basically we will take the rights to a fair trial away from the individuals. You will see a lot of evidence brought up in court that never insisted in the reports. Without that law people’s privacy rights will be violated and will be pretty much gone. There will be no privacy because the officer’s can put a wire on your phone for instance and whatever comes up in the individual’s conversation will be used against him or her; Not that is not being done already but without the exclusionary rule the law enforcement officer wouldn’t need a warrant to invade that individual’s privacy. You will see allot of people’s rights being taken from them, the right to a fair trial, the right to have your privacy, basically shattering the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, stating the no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. To take away the exclusionary rule is like taking away someone’s freedom as well. If you are not safe to talk in your household without someone tapping your phone’s, or just invading your privacy. That is not freedom you’re a slave in your own home. Searching someone’s home without a warrant is why we absolutely need the rule, the evidence obtained in the search will be held against you without this rule. Therefore the criminal acts that they already were working towards putting against you have now been more than likely doubled.
The exclusionary rule was set in place to protect citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures. As a result of the induction of this rule, law enforcement throughout the country has been affected and changed. Personally, I do not believe that the exclusionary rule should not be excluded from the criminal justice system because constitutional rights need to be upheld. I also feel that the rule acts as a check and balance system for officers in law enforcement. However, there are a couple recommendations that I have on how to tweak the exclusionary rule to minimize the amount of criminals that are set free because they use the rule as a technicality in court proceedings. I feel that the exclusionary rule is a work in progress and it needs to be altered as often as criminals and technology change in order to keep its effectiveness. According to Dripps “In 1914, the Supreme Court case of Weeks vs.United States established that illegally seizing items from a private residence was in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution”(35). This case also established the exclusionary rule in which the admission of illegally obtained evidence into federal court proceedings was illegal. However, at this time, this rule did not apply to individual state’s court proceedings. This lasted until the case of Mapp vs. Ohio reached the Supreme Court in 1961. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applied to not only federal criminal prosecutions, but to state prosecutions as well. This decision brought about great changes for police and criminal procedure throughout the Country. According to Davies “The Supreme Court case of Mapp vs. Ohio changed the way that law enforcement officers were legally allowed to obtain evidence for criminal prosecutions”( 18).
I agree with the exclusionary rule, though there may be...
Cited: Davies, Thomas Y. "A Hard Look at What We Know (and Still Need to Learn) about the Exclusionary Rule: The NIJ Study and Other Studies of 'Lost ' Arrests." American Bar Foundation Research Journal (1983): 18.
Dripps, Donald A. "Living With Leon." Yale Law Journal 95 (1986): 35.
Hall, Connor. "Letters of Interest to the Profession, Evidence and the Fourth Amendment." American Bar Association Journal 8 (1922): 646.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document