The Exclusionary Rule: Protecting Citizens against Police Abuse - Research Paper Example

The Exclusionary Rule: Protecting Citizens against Police Abuse The paper explores the exclusionary rule initiated by the American constitutional law. The rule reflects the facts to how it was initiated and the need for the rule in safeguarding the citizens of America. The paper justifies the rationale for the implementation of the law keeping in view the abuses faced by the people from the police because of their power. The paper has identified the effectiveness that the rule has over the people and the justice system to protect the citizens from the abusive acts of the police. Background The exclusionary rule is one of the legal doctrines of the United States of America under the constitutional law. The rule has emerged as a topic of debate for the modern constitution as well as the criminal law. The rule depicts that the evidences which are acquired in an illegal way will not be used by the government for the case. In this regard, it can be stated that this exclusionary rule is important as without its existence, the government and the people will be able to violate the privacy of citizens in an illegitimate manner. The exclusionary rule has been created for the safety of the people and is based on the Fourth Amendment to the constitution of the US. The amendment reflects that the right of every individual must be secured against any violation. The rule permits the court to disregard the evidence which is illegally obtained by the government. The reason for such exclusion is to safeguard the people from the intrusion of the government by demanding search warrants before proofs are taken from the private property (Smith, 2011). The purpose of the rule under the US constitution is to protect the people and to discourage the unlawful acts of the police in the coming future and effectuate the assurance of the Fourth Amendment against the irrational searches and seizures. Rational and Justifications of the Position Taken The rationale behind the exclusion rule is to seize violation of the law. In several instances, it is observed that the police have the intention to make unlawful search and interrogation to get evidence, but if they realise that the rule will not allow them to use its fruits in evidence, it might stop. The exclusionary rule is a remedy which is not solely applied on federal government but also to the states as per the orders of the Supreme Court with reference to Mapp v. Ohio (1961) (The Public Defender Service, 2012). The case explains the misconduct that was faced by the citizen which initiated the need for the exclusionary rule to safeguard the rights of the people. In the year 1961, police entered the premises of Mapp forcibly without any warrant for the search of a suspect. The police curbed the rights of Mapp by not allowing her to contact the attorney and also used their power to enter their premises without a legal warranty. With reference to Mapp v Ohio case, a rule was initiated that no illegal evidences provided will be taken into consideration as the evidences were obtained illegitimately. The reason for such rule was to protect the rights of the people against the unethical searches and to stop the police from violating the laws. The motive of the rule was to initiate the need of professionalism with ethics. Thus, the exclusionary rule was established to reduce the level of violation by the police from improper search and to encourage the protection of the citizens (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The case reflects the reason as to how and why the exclusionary rule was established and how the police were using their power against the common citizens of America. The rule was propounded to bring peace and order in the nation and to stop the police from unjust conducts. The action taken by the government was rational in order to safeguard the people from the misconduct, abuse and brutality from the police. The aim objective of the law was to benefit the people who are being treated unlawfully. The rule is rationale and justified as it discourages the police from doing misconducts and abuses to the people. It is important to protect the privacy level of every individual. The motive of the exclusionary rule is to ensure that the fundamental rights of the people are not violated by the police. Moreover, the rule is of beneficial as it averts fabrication of the evidences. Police misconduct in America is common from time immemorial. The misconducts have either been based on physical, emotional abuse or by means of corruption. As per the human rights acts, the behaviours of the police must be ethical towards the people in other to maintain the law of the country. However, it is observed that the lawmakers are the ones who are violating the laws and using their power in an illegitimate manner. There are various cases wherein the police have violated the law and instead of protecting the citizens of America have abused them. From the cases, it can be reflected that the need for the exclusionary rule is vital as it enables to save the rights of the people against any violation. On the contrary, the exclusionary rule has few exceptions on the basis of standing, inevitable discovery, attenuation and good faith. The exceptions are provided to overcome the loopholes that the rule has. As per the Fourth Amendment, violation of the police might at times leads to the freeing of the criminal because of the improper conduct of the police. The exception of the rule can be evidential from the case of Herring v. United States, a case which took place in the year 2009, wherein the court for the first time offered an exception on the basis of good faith to the police for the error regarding the warrants. With regard to the case, Bennie Dean Herring, was arrested by the police due to the error in the information regarding the outstanding warrant. The police were of the opinion that the warrant is outstanding on Herring but the warrant was actually no more active. The information acquired by the police was wrong due to the improper track recording by the police. Thus, the police searched and found methamphetamine in his pocket and an unlawful pistol in the automobile. Herring was arrested but the act of the police was wrong as they originally had no active warrant against the person (Henning, 2009). In this case, the search made by the police was illegal and hence as per the Fourth Amendment the right of the citizen was being curbed. On the other hand, the evidence found the pistol to be illegal which could be of harm in future. Keeping this case in mind, the exclusionary rule was provided with few exceptions to safeguard rights of the people. In this regard, if the exceptions are not provided then the rule involves certain loopholes as any criminal can be free from the crime as the police have no proper legal documents (Henning, 2009). Responsively, the rationale to have few exceptions on the basis of ‘good faith’ and others for the benefit of the people and the country security is important. Thus, as per the scenarios and cases, it can be justified that the exclusionary rule is of significance as it will limit the police and other people from searching in an unauthorised manner and would also reduce the incidences of police misconduct and abuses. This rule is an important tool as it can prevent few people from being harassed by illegitimate methods by the police to collect evidence. Moreover, the law has increased the awareness regarding the existence of the illegal search and restricted it to a considerable extent. The exclusionary rule was initiated to prevent the police from demonstrating their extreme behaviour. The rule is to protect the right to privacy of every individual. It is reflected from the current scenarios that the corruption of the police is increasing at a high ratio and because of the presence of this policy, the violence of the police will be reduced and the right to protect the citizen will be adhered. In this context, it can be stated the exclusionary rule must be adhered in order to protect the American people from the unlawful actions of the police as well as to make the justice system effective without violating the law and curbing the rights of the people. It is evidential that the American justice system is not the best and hence with the help of the exclusionary rule the illegal activities and the protection of the citizen against the police abuse will be reduced to a certain extent. Therefore, to make the officials operate ethically and to protect the people from the illegal actions this rule is of importance but with few exceptions (Washington University School of Law, 2011). Conclusion The exclusionary rule limits the use of unauthorized seized proofs against the individuals whose constitutional rights are being desecrated because of the search by the police. The rule endeavours to safeguard the rights of the people and also to protect the citizens against the increasing violence of the police. In many cases, police are using their power in a wrong manner and hence with the establishment of the exclusionary rule the privacy of the people will be respected. Moreover, the rule has few exceptions in order to mitigate the loopholes i.e. the chances of the criminals being free due to the rule as reflected in the case of Herring v. United States (2009). Hence, the implementation of the exclusionary rule is important for the protection of the citizens of America from the mistreatment of the police. References Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). Mapp V. Ohio. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/367/643 Henning, A.C. (2009). Herring v. United States: Extension of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in the exclusionary rule in the fourth amendment cases. Congressional Research Service, 1-7. Smith, J.M. (2011). The evolution of the exclusionary rule. Article, 215-237. The Public Defender Service. (2012). The fourth amendment: exclusionary rule. Resources, 1-36. Washington University School of Law. (2011). Application of the “exclusionary rule” to bar use of illegally seized evidence in civil school disciplinary proceedings. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 52, 375-397. Read More