Exclusion of Evidence in Criminal Justice - Research Paper Example

Exclusion of Evidence School Objectives: The Paper is an investigation into the laws of exclusion of evidence, which is unclear or inconsistent in some cases. Methodology: The research relies heavily on the use of secondary data. Some of the instrumental documents include recent case files, from where the Davis Vs. United states case was obtained, In addition, the United States constitution, and articles where authors present their arguments concerning exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence were used. Results: The police were wrong to search Davis’ car, since it was a violation of the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Judiciary has is in place to interpret the law in a manner that will sustain the Constitutional provisions, which involve protecting citizens from unlawful searches and fair treatment of all the citizens. The ‘Exclusion’ provision serves to protect citizens while at the same time educating the law enforcers on the importance of upholding the constitution. Exclusion of Evidence Introduction Laws, in their very nature, are designed to protect the citizens, regardless of their standing in society. This is such that everyone, including entities suspected of various crimes, may lay claim to fair treatment as per the constitution. Some of the amendments used as the bases for rights suspected criminals are the 4th and 14th amendments, protecting citizens from injustices, especially injustices by law enforcers. One of the provisions of these amendments is the right to exclude evidence that is illegally obtained from the trial (Colb, 2011). Laws that deal will exclusion of evidence are sometimes marred by a conspicuous lack of clarity. These laws particularly have been a source of contention in the justice system, warranting the need for a deeper look into the subject. The piece sets out to talk about the function of the 4th and 14th amendments in protecting the rights of suspects. This is especially as regards exclusion of evidence. Some of the questions to be taken into consideration include an example of a case where excluding evidence changed the outcome of the case. In addition, the paper will discuss the 4th and 14th amendments at length, giving justifications for the laws in the place. The Davis vs. United States Case (Colb, 2011) This case involves police that stopped a car belonging to Davis and arrested him for issuing wrong information to them. That is, Willies Gene Davis lied about his name. The police arrested him, cuffed him, and secured in the police car. This was followed by a search of his car, during which the police came across a firearm in his jacket pocket. David faced prosecution by the United States for possessing a firearm. Citing the 4th amendment, David moved to have the weapon excluded from evidence. He pointed out that police have no right to search a vehicle whose owner has been arrested and restrained, such that they are indisposed to reach inside the vehicle. As his appeal was considered, an announcement by the U.S Supreme Court clarified that it was in fact unlawful to search the vehicle after securing the suspect, unless there was reason to believe that search would bring forth evidence pertinent to the crime for which they have been arrested. It was decided that the search had been a violation of the 4th amendment. However, following a ruling under the Eleventh Circuit decision, His motion was denied as the search was upheld. Apparently, though there was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence did not fall within the scope of the exclusionary role. Excluding the evidence would be costly, leading to the freeing of a guilty party. This saw to his conviction, ignoring the previous ruling of the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights (Colb, 2011). The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments The Fourth Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights. It states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (U.S. Const. amend. IV ). According to this Amendment, the government is restricted from undertakings that infringe on the rights of the citizens. Citizens are protected from illegal phone taps, random entry into one’s premises by those in charge of law enforcement, searches through ones briefcase, random frisks on the way and unexplained detention at the police station. The Fourteenth Amendment was an effort to ensure that all peoples were subjected to equal treatment, following the Civil War. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV) The Amendment provides for recognition of individual rights of the citizens by the state and federal governments. Accordingly, one must insist upon equally protecting all citizens’ rights, dictated by all preceding amendments. In addition, all citizens have a right to the due process of law. The Role of the 4th and 14th Amendments Following the enactment of these amendments, illegally or unlawfully obtained evidence is declared inadmissible in court. Davies (2002) outlines some of the purposes for enforcing the ‘exclusion’ law. The first, according to him, is so that authorities abate the risk of committing unreliable evidence. This is especially applicable in cases where the police use threats or force, among other unlawful means, to coarse a confession from the suspect. Evidence obtained in this way is unlawful. Secondly, the law is in place to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that courts are trusted to not be condoning unlawful acts by those in charge of law enforcement (Colb, 2011). A third reason is to discourage law enforcers from engaging in such unlawful conduct. Oppressive conduct among those relied upon to purge the environment of this kind of conduct is not permissible (Davies, 2002). This law acts as some form of check into their behavior. The Davis Case Discussed In the Davis case, the decision by the Court was deemed reasonable. This, because precedence held that the Fourth Amendment was permissive of certain kinds of searches (Colb, 2011). Key is to realize that the amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches and procedures (Thomson, 2013). While there is protection from intrusion by law enforcement, there are searches and seizures that still fall within the limits of ‘reasonable’. Here, the officers of the government are at liberty to perform searches without necessarily having a warrant. What is to be considered is whether Davis had any right to expect privacy in the first place, given that he was ferrying a firearm illegally (Thomson, 2013). Consequences This assumed, it is imperative to position out that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments exist for a reason. The purposes are outlined. Just like the other laws in the constitution, one ought to consider the reasons for these two amendments, and who they were meant to protect. The firearm was rendered admissible due to presence of precedence on the subject, whereby there unlawfully obtained evidence was rendered admissible prior to the case at hand (Colb, 2011) This was a mistake. Setting precedence for disregarding the elements of the constitution leads to such a scenario. One can therefore say that while the police at the scene could scarcely be blamed for the decision they made, assuming that they may not have been aware of the laws on unlawful searches, someone else was to blame. In this scenario, the judiciary has to bear the blame. The existence of a precedence implies that at some point, there was a decision by the judiciary to overlook the provisions of the constitution (Thomson, 2011); a decision to commit evidence obtained outside the confines of the law. In the Davis case, there was an initial ruling against the admissibility of evidence obtained in this way, a commendable attempt at rectifying the past wrongs of the judiciary. However, the same judiciary later on declared the revolver admissible in court. This decision chips away at the integrity of the constitution. It implies that the Fourth Amendment is only applicable where it is convenient to apply. It also disregards the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which advocates fair and equal treatment of all citizens. Davis’ rights were violated, both by the arresting officers and by the judiciary, which should be responsible for examining the feats of the government officers (The US. Const) The Bigger Picture By finding the gun and committing it to evidence, it is possible that the arresting officers saved a life or prevented another crime that was going to involve the firearm. As such, it may seem harsh to punish them for searching the car. This is assuming that the Court’s failure to indict Davis for possession of a firearm would come as a form of punishment to them (Davies, 2002). One, however, ought to look into issues of sending the right message to the greater number of people. To the police, committing the discovered revolver as part of evidence would be a sign of acceptance for the work they did. They uncovered an illegal firearm and this is not a fault on their part. However, by ruling to commit the firearm into evidence, the Courts ruled that it was worth a reward, that the arresting officers violated the rights of the suspect (Cold, 2011). The Fourth Amendment should have acted as a basis for the police to refrain from inspecting the car. Ruling to admit the revolver into evidence sends a message to these particular police and the rest that there can be a reward for disregarding the constitution in the course of implementing ones tasks. The Judiciary is in charge of interpreting the law. As such, there is a greater burden on this arm to ensure that the law is followed to the letter. It was illegal for Davis to be in possession of a firearm, but it was also unlawful for the police to search his car after securing him. The courts have the obligation to make certain that there are no grey areas on this. The police were not acting within the confines of the law. By ruling to have the evidence committed, the Judiciary is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; Davis receives treatment unequal from those cases in which unlawfully obtained evidence was omitted from the trial. The Citizens need to believe in the stability and consistency of the constitution, in the integrity of the system. Making different rulings on the constitutionality of evidence obtained through certain means is destabilizing. The stability of the judiciary and law enforcing agencies serves to provide clarity on the constitution and hence, the extent of the rights of civilians. Conclusion Laws on exclusion of evidence are often unclear, due to the inconsistency in the justice system. As regards this, the paper has looked into the case of Willie Gene Davis, in which the Court ruled to admit his unlawfully uncovered revolver into evidence. The discussion involved mainly the role of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies in upholding his rights as per the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Government agencies ought to be steady in their endeavors to uphold the rights of the citizens. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments apply, even if this fact acts to inconvenience some members of the law protection agencies. The fact that precedence exists to undermine the role of the constitution on the part of those tasked with implementing the law is an oversight that has to be rectified. Citizens deserve equal, fair, and lawful treatment. This can only be ensured by putting the Judiciary and Law enforcement agencies to task on the matter. References Colb, S. (2011, July 27). Why Suppress Illegally Obtained Evidence? The U.S. Supreme Court Decides Davis v. United States. Verdict. Retrieved from http://verdict.justia.com/2011/07/27/why-suppress-illegally-obtained-evidence Davies, G.L. (2002) "The Exclusion of Evidence Illegally or Improperly Obtained: An Unsatisfactory Answer to an Unstated Question", Journal of Financial Crime, 9(3), 244 – 248. Retrieved from http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/DaviesG.pdf The Constitution of the United States. Amendment IX and XIV. Retrieved from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf Thomson, R. (2013). Search and Seizure Law. Findlaw. Retrieved from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/search-and-seizure-law.html Read More