Applicability of Exclusionary Rule - Essay Example

Exclusionary Rule Introduction: Fourth Amendment to the United s Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. TheAmendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was originally designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance. Fourth Amendment was made to protect the interest and rights of citizens and to prevent harassment / intrusion to their personal life and property. It protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, searches should be ‘reasonable’ and specific. Further, the police officer must prove ‘the probable cause’ to get a search warrant. The Exclusionary Rule was framed by Judges of Supreme Court of US in 1914 (Weeks v. United States) to prevent police from conducting illegal searches and seizures. In fact, the exclusionary rule was found to be necessary to protect the rights guaranteed to Citizens under Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence/ witness collected or analyzed which is against U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law . It aims at preventing misconduct on the part of police. Before the precedent was set in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), courts used to admit all evidences irrespective of their relevance / legality. Until the decision in Mapp V.Ohio (367 U.S. 643 (1961) ,the rule was applicable at the Federal level only. After this case, the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule applies to all citizens or aliens who reside within the United States. It does not applicable to aliens residing outside of U.S. borders. In United States v. Alvarez ,the U.S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. Prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U.S. borders. Corporations, have limited rights under Fourth Amendment. Requirements of Exclusionary Rule: i. There must be a legal action initiated / taken by a police officer / representative of police. ii. The police officer must have collected certain evidence. iii. There must be connection between illegal action and evidence collected. Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule: The exceptions to the Exclusionary rule are as follows: 1. Independent source doctrine: This exception was discussed in Segura and Colon v U.S in 1984. If evidence is collected through independent source and disqualified and later the same evidence was collected through warrant ,that is admissible. The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted in court if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate, or independent, source that is completely legal. This rule was accepted in People v. Arnau. 2. Inevitable discovery doctrine: This matter was discussed in Nix vs. Williams, in 1984. This doctrine states that if evidence is seized in two ways and if one of the evidences is seized physically through illegal means, and there was also a hypothetical evidence of seizure, that hypothetical evidence can be admitted. The doctrine holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established that the police have conducted normal investigation to discover the evidence. 3. Good Faith Rule: If the police officer has obtained and produced the evidence in “ good faith” , that evidence is valid .The matter was discussed in United States V. Leon, 468 U.S.897(1984).The Supreme Court held that evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant later found to be defective was still admissible. In United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338.[6](1974), the Supreme Court held that the judges may use allegedly illegally obtained evidence in questioning and getting the evidence. However, whether the search conducted for obtaining evidence was legal or illegal can be determined later. In People v. Stith, the Court stated that this doctrine may be used to admit only secondary evidence. However, Supreme Court ruled that the “good faith rule” does not apply to Tax hearings Deportation hearings If the evidence is illegally seized by Government Officials outside United States . When the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendants testimony If the evidence is seized by a Private Party “ Good Faith ” rule applies only to evidences obtained to impeach the defendant and not the third party. 4. The attenuation exception: This exception states that that evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. In People v. Martinez, this exception was used to determine whether there was sufficient attenuation of this connection. In this case , Investigation was carried out about : a) The time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consensual search b) The presence of intervening factors or event; and c) The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. 5. Civil cases, grand jury proceedings and hearings in parole revocation are also exceptions to the exclusionary rule. “Fruit and Poisonous doctrine” In this context, the discussion on “Fruit and Poisonous doctrine” seems to be relevant. The Exclusionary Rule intends to know how evidence is acquired, rather than what the evidence is. As such, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to get the evidence , that evidence will be considered as evidence stemmed from the illegal action and this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree" . The judge may not consider this evidence . Case Laws: Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886): In this case, defendants room had been searched and papers were seized by officers without a search warrant. The Supreme Court held that If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914): The Supreme court ruled that The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgment of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution” . The exclusionary rule applied only to Federal court. Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957): The Court insisted a requirement that arrestees be promptly presented to a magistrate by holding that incriminating admissions obtained during the period beyond a reasonable time for presentation would be inadmissible. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960): The exclusionary rule was discarded by a five-to-four majority. The Supreme Court held that the silver platter doctrine (exclusionary rule) was no longer constitutionally viable. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 661 (1961): The supreme court upheld the protection to defendants in state courts as well. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980): The Court held it impermissible for a federal court to exercise its supervisory power to police the administration of justice in the federal system to suppress otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that federal agents had flagrantly violated the Fourth Amendment rights of third parties in order to obtain evidence to use against others when the agents knew that the defendant would be unable to challenge their conduct under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 907 (1984): In the above case, the judges opined that the exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs,", which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been "cautious against expanding" it. James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990): In the above case , the court held that “ the impeachment exception applies only to the defendants own testimony, and may not be extended to use illegally obtained evidence to impeach the testimony of other defense witnesses ” Conclusion: The exclusionary rule which was framed by judges during 1914 has undergone tremendous changes. It is still prevalent as there is no alternative rule has been framed so far. It is safeguarding the rights given to Citizens under the Fourth Amendment. As such, abolition of exclusionary rule may not be advisable. In the words of Justice Homes,” outright abolition of the exclusionary rule would reduce the Fourth Amendment to a form of words." ======0====== References: Read More