Homework answers / question archive / 1)  According to the text, "the exclusionary rule requires that any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person"

1)  According to the text, "the exclusionary rule requires that any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person"

Law

Share With

1)  According to the text, "the exclusionary rule requires that any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that person". Previously under the common law, the illegal seizure of evidence did not effect the admissibility of that evidence in court. The development of the exclusionary rule had changed that following the case of Weeks V. United States. In short, anything that violates our rights or due process law is excluded from evidence at a trial. The primary injustice the exclusionary rule is used to prevent is police misconduct. In hindsight, it seems that the exclusionary rule is a beneficial tool that protects our individual rights in the criminal justice process. However, the only issue I see with the exclusionary rule is boundaries. I was not able to identify information regarding punishment of a perpetrator that committed an illegal act, but evidence was collected illegally. For example, if a police officer entered a home illegally (warrantless) and discovered 100lbs of heroin, what would happen in that case? The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained by police illegally must be excluded from criminal prosecution. Therefore, does the person in possession of 100lbs of heroin get to walk free? In my opinion I believe the rule is very beneficial and our rights should always be protected but I believe there should be some clarity as to what happens to serious offenders when their evidence is excluded from criminal prosecution.  

2.  The Exclusionary Rule is a legal rule and constitutional law that prevents evidence that is collected or analyzed in an illegal way to not be allowed to be used in court. When the procedures taken or evidence collected is done so as being a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, it is not allowed to be used in a court of law. The Exclusionary Rule prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. This is meant to deter police misconduct, exclude incriminating evidence from being brought to trial that could be in violation of constitutional provision, and set boundaries. This can turn into a sticky situation. If someone is unreasonably searched and an illegal firearm is found on them, it cannot be used against them because the search was a violation of their rights, although the item was illegally obtained. 

3.   The exclusionary rule is a legal rule, based on consitutional law, that prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional right's from being used in a court of law. The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Futhermore, the decision of Mapp v. Ohio stated that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the fourth Amendment. For instance, if a police officer arrest a person in violation of constitutionally mandated procedures without a warrant or a warrant exception, the exclusionary rule requires a trail court to suppress any contraband the officer discovered during the search incident to that arrest.  

4.  The Exclusionary Rule prevents the Government and other law enforcement agencies from using evidence gathered that violates the U.S constitution. It helps prevent unjust and illegal searches and arrests of U.S citizens and helps protect citizens fourth and fourteenth amendment rights. This rule helps to prevent police and other law enforcement agencies misconduct. The decision from the Mapp v. Ohio case made that the exclusionary rule applied to evidence gained from an illegal search in violation of the fourth amendent and the decision from the Miranda v. Arizona case established that the exclusionary rule applied to improper self incriminatory statements that was gathered in violation of the fifth amendment. There are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule such as the Good Faith Exception which states "evidence is not excluded if it is obtained by officers who reasonably rely on a search warrant which turns out to be invalid". 

5.  The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most of the evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, it also comes into play when such a violation leads less directly to incriminating evidence. 
If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusion rule led authorities to search for other evidence, which they would not have otherwise located, then the exclusion rule applies to newly discovered evidence, subject to some exceptions. The secondarily excluded evidence is called "fruit of the poisonous tree."