Exclusionary Rule and Its Role within Criminal Procedure - Research Paper Example

Exclusionary Rule and Its Role within Criminal Procedure The “exclusionary rule” is a result of the fourth amendment in the constitution of the United States of America. The amendment was made to protect the citizens by unfair and illegal searches by the government officials. According to the rule, the evidence obtained through the search of a suspected criminal is excluded from his trail if the search of a criminal is unreasonable. It also protects the Americans from undue deprivation of property, liberty and life. This rule has been the subject of opposition by many conservatives who deem it as not helpful for the search of truth. It has been a high priority for these conservatives to abolish the exclusionary rule. For example, in the year 1995, when the Republicans won the elections, they immediately tried to work against this rule. Then police officials do not comply with the rules of search warrants, they should rightly justify themselves for doing so. The right time to look at any unconstitutional behavior is to see if prosecutors present illegal evidence in the court. The exclusionary rule is very effective for preserving the integrity of the warrant issuing process. The rule focuses as to how the evidence from a suspected criminal is obtained and establishes the ethics of warrants. (Lynch, 1998). The exclusionary rule holds on all the people of the United States of America, whether they are residents, non residents or just visitors. Manu states have their own exclusionary rules for illegally obtained evidence by their police agents (Leonetti). The Exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment was actually the reaction against the English law for general warrants (U.S Supreme Court, 1967). The history of the exclusionary rule can be dated back to the year 1886. In this year a case was presented in the Supreme Court of the United States of America named U.S versus Boyd. During the case, the court proclaimed that demanding papers from a criminal suspect to be used against was not feasible due to the personal integrity, liberty and security of the suspect. Moreover, the court realized that it is solely the duty of the court to take care of the constitutional rights of the citizens of America. At the case of Weeks versus U.S, the court solemnly recognized the rights of individuals to be protected. Unanimously, the court decided that an illegal search to obtain papers from a suspect violates his right of liberty and personal integrity. Therefore, any papers or evidence obtained by this manner would be held void and is thus prohibited. The court not only pressed upon the individual rights but also declared that any concern regarding the breach of privacy will not be tolerated (Yagla). In the year 1914, the Supreme Court of the United States prohibited the search of a suspected criminal in one of the court cases (U.S Supreme Court, 1914).  The fourth amendment in the constitution of the United State 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” (Lynch. 1998). Many bills to date have been passed in the court to protect the citizens of America. This exclusionary rule was no different as it also stressed upon protecting the rights of an individual by keeping the code of conduct of unnecessary warrants strict but the rule has been controversial as whether it is necessary for the constitution or not (Lynch. 1998). Arrest of a suspected criminal is the first step in the procedure of a criminal prosecution. The arrest may result after an investigation by the police department or in some cases there is just nominal investigation. Whether the arrest is a result of the latter or the former, the collection of evidence and the way in which the investigations are performed by the police often poses issues in criminal cases. After the arrest, the criminal suspect has the right to remain silent but sometimes he also goes through an offending search of weapons by the police agents. The suspected criminal is then taken to a jail where his photograph and other personal detail are jotted down. He also has to hand over all his personal belongings through a procedure known as stripping. After that, he is locked up in a police locker room or a cell. The suspect is however informed of the complete charges on him after he has gone through all these practices. Appearance in front of the court takes place soon after all this. Sometimes, a bail is granted to the defendant while in other cases he is forced to stay up in the jail till the case is completely resolved. The latter case happens to be when the magistrate thinks of the suspect as a danger to the society (criminal procedure). The exclusionary rule in general discourages the search done on the suspects by the police officials. If there is no evidence against the defendant, then the case should be dismissed right away. The exclusionary rule also forbids the use of the proof if obtained by violating other constitutional rights. When the police officers have collected evidence for a search warrant, the suspect is solely responsible to prove before the arrest that the warrant lacks the appropriate evidence (Criminal procedure). I will quote a very simple example to illustrate how this exclusionary rule can affect a criminal procedure. I have taken this example from the book “In defense of the exclusionary rule”. If a police officer hints at some taxi driver to be a night burglar, he may launch an investigation to search for evidences and proofs that would prove the taxi driver guilty. This in turn would enable the police official to arrest the driver and put charges against him. On the other hand, if the officer does not launch any investigation and just breaks in the house of the driver to search it for proof of stolen items without a search warrant, all this would go into vain even if he manages to find a lot of stolen items. The reason for this is that the evidence was found without proper search warrant and thus is termed illegal. The case will not be entertained in the court. It is important to press upon the point that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens from the undue power of the police force. The exclusionary rule has many merits as well as some limitations. I will highlight some of its merits first. Let us consider the enormous power which the police hold with it in conducting a search. If the police officers enter a house to search, then they may wake you up from sleep at night and take out all your belongings from drawers and cupboards. They may create a mess and point out their guns or damage some belongings. The search can be quite intense. The criminal suspect might later hire a lawyer in his defense but the damage to the property may have been already done by the police. The consequence can indeed be a tragic one. The rule of exclusionary is against such illegal searches and demands that proper investigations be made before the suspect’s house in searched. Though the merits of the exclusionary rule are obvious and thus creditable, it does have some reciprocal effects. There are many criminals who are in the urge of finding their prey to rob, destroy their property or to threaten the lives of the innocent. Many Americans have become victims of these vile criminals over the past years and it therefore sometimes becomes necessary for the police to take quick actions against them to prevent any delay for justice. The police officials are expected to track down these criminals as fast as possible in certain circumstances when the lives of people are at stake. Serious consequences may result when shortcuts are not taken (Lynch. 1998). There are many limitations of the exclusionary rule. One of them includes that if the proof against anybody is obtained unlawfully through a private person, then that would be accepted and not held has illegal because the rule only applies to the government police officers (U.S Supreme Court, 1921). A second limitation is that the proof against a criminal can be suppressed if the illegal search harmed the person’s constitutional rights. Moreover, the suspected criminal is not supposed to take the illegal searching of the police officers for his advantage (U.S Supreme Court cases). Many people claim that the criticism regarding the exclusionary rule is mostly misdirected. It is the constitutional laws which limit the power of the police for searches, not the sanctions. During a case of Ohio versus Mapp, it was noted that if a criminal is set free, then it is the law which is setting him free itself, that is the constitution and hence the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment and thus the exclusionary rule can be regarded in other ways, for example, it can be argued that the law feels much better to set a criminal free than to illegally search him for evidences. One of the main drawbacks of the rule is that one has to gather all the facts to search the suspected criminal and it may be that it’s too late and much harm has already been done to the public by that criminal (Yagla). The value of integrity by the Saint Leo oaths to be honest plus just in all the workings performed. It also pledges to be consistent with the honest deeds. Being honest and just is applicable to both on the internet and in the everyday life. One has to respect the works of others according to the integrity of Saint Leo. If anybody does any work which is indeed lawful, then that work should not be damaged or destroyed by others in any sense. Furthermore, Saint Leo emphasizes that all human beings make mistakes and are therefore not perfect, but they are also accountable for the bad deeds they perform. People should be treated with empathy and should be understood by others (Hodges & Pavela) The exclusionary rule still remains a very controversial rule in the constitution of the United States of America. There have been many criticisms regarding this rule. There is a common misconception among foreign countries that this exclusionary rule is only applied in the United States and nowhere else. The reason for this is the vast criticism for the fourth amendment with reference to other countries (Ma, 1999) I feel that personal integrity of a citizen must be protected by the constitution at all times and the exclusionary rule is the best way perhaps to enforce this security. Moreover, I also feel that the police should be given some authority for searches of criminal suspects even without a search warrant to protect the society on the whole. WORKS CITED: Criminal Procedure - The Exclusionary Rule. Retrieved from law.jrank.org Leonetti, C. Independent and Adequate: Maryland's State Exclusionary Rule for Illegally Obtained Evidence. University of Baltimore Law Review Lynch, T. (1998). In defense of the exclusionary rule. Ma, Y. (1999). Comparative analysis of exclusionary rules in the United States, England, France, Germany, and Italy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 22. Hodges, M.W. & Pavela, G. Ten principles of civility in cyberspace. U.S Supreme Court case (1967). Warden v. Hayden. Certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the fourth circuit.  U.S Supreme Court case (1914). Weeks v U.S. U.S Supreme Court case (1921). Burdeau v. Mcdowell U.S Supreme Court case. Jones v U.S clarify the standing requirements. U.S Supreme Court case. Walder v United states. Yagla, C.A. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: the latest example of new federalism in the States. Read More