Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule - Research Paper Example

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule Introduction Exclusionary Rule is a legalised norm in the United s (US), which is a part of its constitutional regulation. This rule is based upon the assumption that evidences gathered through breaching the constitutional rights of defendants for a criminal hearing in the court of law under exceptional cases. The rule is a ‘prophylactic rule’ that has been formed by the court of law to protect the constitutional right of an individual. The rule has been formulated on the basis of Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment wherein it considered that an individual cannot be obligated to be a witness against oneself. Exclusionary Rule safeguards the rights of a citizen against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ due to which an individual cannot be deprived of personal life and property without a lawful permission from the court of law. Thus, this rule creates a legal obligation for the law enforcing officials to obtain a legal warrant for performing a search (Wiseman, 2013). The paper intends to provide an overview of the Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule about its history and actual outcomes. In addition, connections between Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and its core value of integrity are determined in this paper. History of the Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule actually came into existence in the year 1886, which was drawn up from the case of Boyd v. United States. The case was associated with the violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment framed by the US Constitution. In the case, the defendant was wiretapped by the US government and was asked to produce private papers of his business, which was actually violating the statutory rights of the suspect. Subsequently, it was held by the US Supreme Court that demanding defendant’s private documents and using it against him for court trails was the desecration of Fourth and Fifth Amendment under the US Constitution. This is because the right of defendant’s personal life and property was violated as he was forced of self-incrimination along with ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’, which ultimately proscribed the constitutional right of the defendant (Yagla, 1987). Hence, Supreme Courts enunciated the Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule, which in turn created a remarkable balance in the US courts to protect the constitutional rights of citizens along with convicting an offender found guilty in a crime. The exception rule was enacted owing to the fact the Supreme Court narrowed down the scope of exclusionary rule wherein numerous criminal cases were identified in the 1970s (Yagla, 1987). The Supreme Court in the year 1984 introduced ‘Good faith exception to exclusionary rule’, which was the result of the case between United States v. Leon. In this case, police officers acted upon a clue provided by a confidential informer regarding drug related activity carried out at Leon’s house. Thus, police surveillance was conducted on Leon’s personal activities through large amount of evidence of drug trafficking. Subsequently, the police officers applied for a search warrant at a regional court and the regional court issued a search warrant of Leon’s home. Henceforth, huge amount of illegal drugs were found at his home, which indicated that Leon violated the federal rule for drugs. However, the Court of Appeals decided that search warrant was issued with no feasible cause because of which the evidence gathered cannot be used against Leon in his trail. Later, it was held by the Supreme Court that the police officers collected drug trafficking proof from an erroneously issued search warrant, which was acting on the dependence of search warrant. Thus, a good faith exception to exclusionary rule was adopted by US Courts to balance the judgement made for criminal activities in the nation, which was evident in the case of Herring V. United States. Based on the case, Supreme Court applied ‘good faith exception to exclusionary rule’ for the first time. In this case, police officers mistake regarding arrest warrant was admissible in the court trails of defendant Herring, as the mistake was considered as unintentional and the involvement of police officers was undeniably not culpable (Henning, 2009). Outcome of the Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule In the year 1984, the Supreme Court released a cord in the defensive fabric of the Fourth Amendment framed by the US constitution, which undermined the exclusionary rule. This is because ‘good faith exception on exclusionary rules’ was embraced following the case of United States v. Leon wherein it was proclaimed by US Courts that trails will be conducted based upon the evidence collected through warrants issued by neutral justices. Likewise, in the year 1987, case of Illinois v. Krull, warrantless confiscation of proof was authorised in an automobile wrecking yard based upon the assumption of good faith exception (Kaye, 2011). In fact, recently in the case of Herring v. United States ‘good faith exception to exclusionary rule’ was further stretched due to reasonable dependence on warrant issued by a magistrate. Thus, from the aforementioned cases, it can be stated that the actual outcome of good faith exception has been police illegitimacy, due laxity and unconstitutional behaviour. Additionally, it has been identified that the outcome of exception to exclusionary rule is that the actual use of exclusionary rule has become unwarranted (Kaye, 2011). It is evident that cases that are heard in the Supreme Court have been grounded on officer’s trust on inaccurate information, which has apparently resulted in suspending the exclusionary rule. Therefore, in order to create a balance on exceptions to the exclusionary rule a borderline is established amid simple negligence and deliberate negligence to protect the constitutional rights of the US citizens. Numerous measures are taken by the law enforcing bodies in the US to create a balance amid individual rights and officers’ responsibility. As police officers have developed a strategy to avoid a negligent report of illegitimate arrests or searches, it has neither resulted in benefitting the police officers, courts or people in the US. It will be worth mentioning that the outcome of exception to exclusionary rule has opened the doors for police officers to be involved in violation of the constitutional rights (Kaye, 2011). From the past few years, there are number of court cases that have arisen in relation to the exception of exclusionary rule, which has provided an understanding of its adverse outcomes. The Supreme Court in North Carolina used clues provided by both federal courts and state courts for solving the State v. Garner (1985) case that eventually gave rise to an exception of ‘inevitable discovery doctrine’. The case was related to a ‘first degree murder’ in which it was held by the court that evidence that were collected in an illegal manner and would be used against the criminal trial of the defendant. The main reason was that the Supreme Court validated that officers were able to procure the same evidence through lawful measures. Overall, it can be asserted that Supreme Courts in the US acknowledged the exception of inevitable discover doctrine, which raised various controversies regarding its actual usage as the courts were failing to demarcate the limits of these exceptions on the individual rights of the USA citizens (Olson, 1993). Core Value of Integrity in Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule In the present day context, constitutional arguments have gathered significant attention to the manuscript and antiquity of constitutional rights, but it has paved the way for formulating exclusionary rules. Presently, the principal validation of exclusionary rules has been the requirement to deter police misconduct to contextualise the core values of equitable exclusionary rules reinstatement and maintain its judicial integrity. Numerous judges and law practitioners argued that exclusionary rules could be well defended by courts by following a standard of judicial integrity (Re, 2014). The main notion behind this is that evidences gathered illegally amounts to a judiciary implicit authorisation of Fourth Amendment desecrations. Specially mentioning, core value of integrity in exceptions to exclusionary rules is effectually maintained through ensuring that the evidences gathered are constitutional in nature, which cannot be objectionable in any means. It has been identified that breaching judicial integrity is completely different from violation of constitutional rights (Re, 2014). In this context, judicial integrity of exclusionary is highly compromised judge’s uses of unlawfully gathered evidence to make their judgements. Judicial integrity is the core value for any court, which requires courts to make judgements on appropriate information. However, it is considered that the judicial integrity of courts are highly jeopardised when criminals walk out of the courts proudly without actually being punished for the crimes they conducted. The main cause of criminals walking out of courts without being punished is that the actual evidences are suppressed in the process of information transfer from police officers to law practitioners. Therefore, it is conceived that courts must take up certain actions through framing new policies for ensuring that the actual evidences of a case are unsuppressed and the overall judicial integrity of courts are maintained (Re, 2014). On a further note, exclusionary rules inculcates certain core values of integrity, which is based upon the assumption that courts should not encourage police officers to be involved in violation of constitutional rights. Courts in the judicial process must put emphasise towards preserving its integrity in order to ensure that the ‘imperative of judicial integrity’ is not violated in any means through introducing evidences that have been collected through unlawful searches and seizures. In this respect, it can be affirmed that core values of integrity in exclusionary rules is directly dependent on courts, which are responsible for enforcing certain set laws in the nation (Clancy, 2013). Conclusion From the above analysis and discussion, it can be inferred that exceptions to exclusionary rules provides certain authority to the law enforcing officials to collect criminal evidences illegally. However, this authority has been a controversial issue for citizens in the US, as there is a huge possibility that their constitutional rights might get deprived. On one hand, exclusionary rules protect the constitutional rights of the US citizens while on the other hand, exception to exclusionary rules jeopardised the constitutional rights of people in the nation. It was revealed that exceptions to exclusionary rules was actually applied in the year 1984 wherein good faith exception was initiated by the Supreme Court in the case between United States v. Leon. Since then, the outcome of this exception has been quite severe, as the extent of negligence and misconduct among law enforcing officials has increased significantly for collecting evidence through illegal means. Thus, it can be concluded that judicial integrity must be maintained by courts in their judicial process with the aim of ensuring that core values of integrity on exceptions to exclusionary rules is given utmost consideration. References Clancy, T. A. (2013). The fourth amendment’s exclusionary rule as a constitutional right. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 10 (1), 357-391. Henning, A. C. (2009). Herring V. United States: Extension of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in fourth amendment cases. Congressional Research Service, 1-7. Kaye, D. H. (2011). Unraveling the exclusionary rule: From Leon to herring to Robinson-and back? UCLA Law Review Discourse, 58, 207-214. Olson, G. C. (1993). North Carolina adopts the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule - State v. Garner. Campbell Law Review, 15 (3), 305-331. Re, R. M. (2014). The due process exclusionary rule. The Harvard Law Review, 127 (7), 1893-1965. Wiseman, C. (2013). Suspect rights and the exclusionary rule. Retrieved from http://carcrashlawyer.us/category/the-exclusionary-rule/ Yagla, C. A. (1987). The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: The latest example of "new federalism" in the states. Marquette Law Review, 71, 166-199. Read More