*Note: In an effort to broaden my ability to debate arguments and gain a broader perspective of legal opinions, I have chosen to take the dissenting view to this issue rather than the more common assenting view.
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 defendant'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. .
The U.S. Supreme Court established this rule that evidence gathered by a governmental agent in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution cannot be admitted as evidence against a defendant. The rule is available primarily in criminal trials or similar proceedings and must also be observed by state courts. There are various statutory exclusionary rules in addition to the rule established by the Supreme Court.