In the field of law enforcement, one of the most difficult undertakings is the gathering of usable evidence without violating a defendant’s constitutional rights. . Unfortunately, many would-be defendants’ basic constitutional rights are violated during this process. To protect those constitutional rights, there must exist some effective form of regulation where the means by which evidence is obtained is regulated. Yet, this regulation should also protect the integrity of law enforcement’s efforts to obtain sustainable evidence without inhibiting those efforts. The exclusionary rule, though often ineffective, attempts to protect constitutional rights while allowing law enforcement officers to gather evidence.

The exclusionary rule is the means by which courts enforce the constitutional rights of would-be defendants. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines this rule as “a rule of evidence that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of a def

On the contrary one feather in the cap of legislation and the judicial system exists in the presence of an additional exception that has the potential to be effective. Where evidence obtained as a result of the reasonable belief and good faith that a viable search warrant was issued, yet the warrant was determined to have been unsupported by probable cause, the exclusionary rule may be excepted. In U.S. v. Leon , the Court held that the prosecution may introduce illegally-obtained evidence as part of its case-in-chief against the person whose rights were violated if the police obtained the evidence by relying on a search warrant they reasonably believed to be valid. Again, this is a feasible start for adequate and realistic regulation of evidence, yet, unfortunately, these exceptions do not often provide enough room for law enforcement officers to perform their jobs effectively in their attempts to reduce crime and punish criminals.

endant's constitutional rights. ” Even evidence that is indirectly obtained through questionable means and violates a defendant’s constitutional rights is subject to exclusion. That means that any and all evidence resulting from the primary evidence obtained illegally is equally subject to exclusion. This is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

On the court’s rationale of fairness, I submit a theory of my own. This seems only to create an excuse to draw an even greater separation between the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. A continuous complaint of law enforcement officers and a trigger to much police corruption today is their perceived lack of support from the judicial system. For decades, police in Baltimore and throughout the country have believed their legitimate efforts are fruitless. They arrest a perpetrator with valid and qualified evidence only to see that criminal released due to a minor technicality, i.e., the officer could not prove the perpetrator was in fact wearing green socks rather than blue socks during the crime. Although my example seeming is in jest, it illustrates my point. Perhaps if the judiciary acted to support the law enforcement agencies of our country in a positive way rather than providing inconsistent and often unintelligent rulings in easily prosecutable cases, there would be no need for a dividing line.

In cases of illegally obtained confessions, there have developed standards that offer some level of protection to the evidence secured by law enforcement officers. A defendant may request application of the exclusionary rule only if the confession obtained affects their own, personal constitutional rights. For example, if Don confesses to a crime without receiving the required Miranda warning and implicates David as a co-criminal, only Don can claim his Fifth Amendment rights have been violated barring submission of the confession against in proceedings against himself. However, that confession may still be used to prosecute David.

The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent law enforcement officers from using illegal means to obtain information that would be considered incriminating to a defendant’s case in a court of law. For example, let us suppose the police seize evidence, but during that seizure, they violate one of your guaranteed constitutional rights. Perhaps that evidence was a letter lying on your desk and subsequently taken from your office when a police officer came to question you. Seizure of such evidence without a valid search warrant would deem this evidence inadmissible, at least insofar as it being utilized to provide direct proof of your guilt. It is important, however, to bear in mind that the exclusionary rule applies only where evidence is obtained in violation of the Constitution. It does not apply to evidence gathered for an administrative regulation (i.e., IRS contact). A prime example of this type of issue arose in the case of U.S. v. Caceres . In this cas

Some topics in this essay:
Rakas Court, Fortunately IRS’, Terry Ohio, Supreme Court, Alderman Court, California Court, Rule Dissent*, Fourth Amendment, Leon Court, Dictionary Law, exclusionary rule, constitutional rights, law enforcement, law enforcement officers, enforcement officers, evidence obtained, application exclusionary, application exclusionary rule, defendant’s constitutional, defendant’s constitutional rights, supreme court, obtained violation, protect constitutional, protect constitutional rights, law enforcement agencies,