Mississippi in 1936 regarding unconstitutional police interrogation. Generally, criminal justice cases at the Supreme Court mainly focus on creating a balance between the rights of the person and the rights of the society (Dempsey & Forst, 2011, p
As a result, judges should attempt to develop a good society depending on their visions because they believe that the law is merely policy as judicial activists. The decision is also a representation of judicial activism because the Supreme Court essentially created a law that is not within the Constitution (Woodfin, 2009)
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court created the Exclusionary Rule for several well-founded reasons. Analysis of the Rationale and Purpose of the Exclusionary Rule, Along With any Exceptions The Exclusionary Rule is a rule of evidence excluding evidence from criminal proceedings when that evidence is collected in violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights against "unreasonable searches and seizures" by law enforcement, Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights against self-incrimination, and/or Sixth Amendment Constitutional right to legal counsel (Cammack, 2013, p
Martin Garbus, one of the country's leading First Amendment and civil rights trial lawyers, believes that the "new court" can easily overturn many of the decisions made in previous years. According to Garbus, "Even though the Court has said, yes, we respect the right of Miranda, it's been eroded by all kinds of hairsplitting decisions, so that the protection that the defendant once had in the police station is fundamentally gone," (Lalumia, 2004)
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement no longer needs an individual's consent, nor do they require the individual to have knowledge that the search is taking place. As long as the law enforcement officers can say the effort is being done to protect against terrorism, anyone's financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue and mosque records can be obtained (Lithwick & Turner, 2003)
In their decision, the court noted that finding evidence inadmissible if seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment was one of the most important constitutional rights, and was an essential part of the right to privacy. The Court continued to note that the Exclusionary Rule was the only deterrent to overzealous police actions, and the only protection of individuals against such actions (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961)
This paper will discuss how the Miranda decision has been eroded over time, and the long-term outlook of the decisions application. What did the Miranda decision originally attempt to provide? According to the Court, Miranda was intended to allow for pressure against defendants, but to extinguish the use of coercion (O'Connor, 2004)
This means agents would not require a court order to access credit reports, would not have to show any criminal activity, and would not "note" the report, meaning that no one would know their report had been obtained by the government. The enforcement officials need only show their efforts were "in connection with their duties to enforce federal law" (Ramasastry, 2003)
The third and final exception is that of "Good Faith," when a police officer receives a warrant from a magistrate and acts on it to seize evidence -- even if there was an error in allowing the police officer to have the warrant, since the point of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, and there is no misconduct by a police officer, the evidence need not be suppressed. (Cooke, 2002) These exceptions address some of the problems of the exclusionary rule from the authorities' point-of-view -- not every incident of misconduct, however technical, results in the guilty going free or valuable evidence not being used in court
1). Proponents of the exclusionary rule maintain that there exists a fundamental need for some type of protections against constitutional violations, and argue that the exclusionary rules provide a superior alternative to reliance on damage actions that result from such violations (Dripps, 2001)
[2: As cited by Bilz 150. ] A number of empirical studies have examined social psychology questions relevant to an integrity justification and discovered significant support (Bilz 151-152)
In Herring v. United States (2009),[footnoteRef:3] the Court suggested that simple, isolated negligence by an officer conducting the search was insufficient grounds to exclude evidence (Bradley 3)
The attenuation of negligence came to the forefront of the exclusionary rule debate when the California Supreme Court upheld a lower court conviction in People v. Robinson (2009) (Kaye para
Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, were designed to protect citizens against abusive state power. These protections include preventing the government from entering and seizing property without just cause or stripping citizens of their rights without due process (Oaks 665)
" (367, end of Section III). The Supreme Court's ruling in Mapp has been interpreted as a Constitutional mandate to prevent any attempt by the state to weaken or circumvent Fourth Amendment protections (Srinivas 180)
Oaks mentioned several other drawbacks to the exclusionary rule (739-742), including the possibility that police officers will lie more often under oath to prevent suppression of evidence. Despite Oaks making this claim back in 1970, contemporary evidence shows that this is a widespread practice (Wilson 10-11)
Koerth (7) would eliminate a significant problem: the failure of post-Leon jurisprudence to reach underlying probable cause issues in exclusionary rule cases. (Bray 2004:1143) Regardless of the sense they make to the average person or even the judges and politicians who petitioned for them, good faith exemptions will likely continue to be a point of contention, almost as large a debate as the exclusionary rulings themselves as in some eyes they are seen to weaken a system that is already far to lenient
(Bray 2004:1143) Regardless of the sense they make to the average person or even the judges and politicians who petitioned for them, good faith exemptions will likely continue to be a point of contention, almost as large a debate as the exclusionary rulings themselves as in some eyes they are seen to weaken a system that is already far to lenient. (Cossack 1996: 1169-1191) Is it Time for Change?: Having previously discussed the issue of compensation, offered by Dripps and offered a volley of questions regarding the establishment of torte with regard to violations of the fourth amendment, responded to with the exclusionary rule I will now establish a response to Dripps proposal
Mapp has rewritten the criminal law treatise for states which had admitted evidence regardless of how it was obtained. (28) (Kamisar 2003:119) Historically speaking the rule has a long history and as this expert points out the original intent was not to deter criminal behavior on the part of the state but simply to uphold the fourth amendment rights of the accused
Illegal searches, fabricated confessions, and other violations subject to the exclusionary rule are assumed to be worthy of deterrence in their own right. (Osborne 1999:381) Osborne then goes on to argue that even though the exclusionary rule is unique, constitutionally founded and in many ways effective it is not effective enough to resolve the issues in a complicated criminal court system that is purportedly tough on crime