Exclusionary Rule by the Supreme Court - Case Study Example

Therefore, the Supreme Court justifies the use of this clause on deterrent effect except on certain exceptions that the court perceives to be necessary. Therefore, the Exclusionary Rule is used by the US Supreme Court to uphold the rights of individuals against police harassment, and ensure that the police conduct has to be deliberate and lawful; otherwise the Exclusionary will deter it. In Weeks v. United States, a United States Marshal gained entry to Fremont Week’s home without any warrant, and seized books, money, papers, and other properties.

Consequently, Weeks petitioned the court claiming the return of his property, with the argument that the search of his premise was illegal as there was no warranty from the courts to legalize the search. Thus the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Kaminiski, 2010). However, the district court denied Week’s petition and admitted the seized property as evidence. Weeks appealed the ruling and the Supreme Court Granted Certiorari (Kaminski, 2010). The Supreme Court on its findings ruled that if it was possible to seize letters and documents from a defendant and use such evidence against them in any offense, this challenged the supremacy of the Fourth Amendment, which protects and declares the rights of the citizens against any forced searches seizure of property.

Thus, in case a court admitted such evidence, the Fourth Amendment should be as well be stricken off the constitution. Therefore, the Supreme court in its ruling established that while it was praiseworthy for the police to prosecute and access evidence, such worthy efforts cannot be based on an act that would sacrifice and erode the gains of the great principles established by many years of suffering, and which has led them to be embodied in the Supreme law of the land. The court also mentioned the Adams vs.

New York case in reiterating that the Fourth Amendment aimed at securing the rights of the citizen and their privileges against any unlawful invasion of their sanctity of in their home by law enforcers. This ruling vindicated the police for carrying out forceful searches without proper warrants, which amounted to abuse of the police doctrine to uphold law and protect the rights of the citizens. The Police were supposed to obtain a legal warrant, and proceed to access such evidence in the most lawful way.

However in another case Mapp v Ohio the Supreme Court unlike in the first case held that the Exclusionary Rule was as well applicable to any state criminal trials. In Mapp v. Ohio 467 S.S. 643(1961), the defendant was convicted of having certain lewd books, photographs, and pictures that contravened the Ohio law. Three Cleveland police officers entered Mapp’s home, and demanded entrance by force. After demanding a search warrant that the police did not have, the police called for backup and gained access by force to Mapp’s residence (Carmen, 2010).

Similalry, after searching the residence, the police recovered the above materials, and produced them in court against Mapp. The trial court admitted the materials and convicted Mapp. However, the ruling was overruled by the Supreme Court on appeal. Thus, the court held that the Fourth Amendment on protecting the right to privacy applies to all States, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court in this ruling suggested that the same rules