The Exclusionary Rule

<h1>Text Preview</h1> <p> <P>Although the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches, it does not implicitly prohibit law enforcement from gathering evidence that is not directly related to the warrant. During the course of a legal search, police officers would sometimes obtain evidence that did not fall within the scope of their search warrant or probable cause. Prosecutors would often present this "tainted evidence" in court to bolster their case against the defendant. Civil libertarians argue that if illegally obtained evidence can be used against a defendant, then he or she really has no Fourth Amendment rights. Police and prosecutors maintain that it is often difficult or impossible to determine exactly what evidence will be found. They have asked for greater latitude in searching for and seizing evidence. </P> </p> <p> <P>The <b>exclusionary rule</b> was established as a guideline for courts to determine the admissibility of evidence. The rule states that evidence that is not obtained within the scope of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used as evidence. The Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule in <i><b>Weeks v. United States</b></i><b> (1914)</b>. Weeks was accused of using the postal service to ship lottery tickets across state lines. The police entered his home without a warrant and found several pieces of evidence that were used to convict him. Weeks appealed his conviction, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The Court agreed, and ordered the evidence not only excluded from his case, but returned to Weeks. </P> </p> <p> <P>There are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld several convictions that were achieved with the use of evidence that would have been disqualified in federal court. Multiple defendants appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court heard <i><b>Wolf v. Colorado</b></i><b> (1949)</b>. The Court upheld the convictions and expanded the ability of local and state police departments to obtain evidence. The Court ruled that while excluding the evidence would have deterred illegal searches in the future, other methods would also have been effective. They stated that internal police discipline would prevent future illegal searches. </P> </p> <p> <P>In <i><b>Mapp v. Ohio</b></i><b> (1961)</b>, the Court seemingly reversed its decision in <i>Wolf v. Colorado</i>. Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials that were obtained by authorities in an illegal search. The prosecutor used the evidence against her under <i>Wolf</i> guidelines. The Court reversed the decision and required all states to enact search and seizure legislation that was reflective of federal policy. <i>Mapp</i> broadened the exclusionary rule, and placed the onus on police at every level to ensure that all evidence used in a trial is legally obtained. Courts have had an increasingly difficult time determining exactly what constitutes legal search and seizure and when the exclusionary rule should be applied. </P> </p> <p> <P>The <b>good-faith exception</b> allows certain types of evidence that would normally be excluded to be introduced in a trial. If police can successfully argue that they were acting in good faith when obtaining evidence, it can be admitted. <i><b>United States v. Leon</b></i><b> (1984)</b> introduced the good-faith exception. Local police obtained information from a confidential informant stating that Leon was operating a large-scale drug operation in his home. The police obtained a warrant to search his home and discovered large quantities of drugs and drug paraphernalia.<br></P> <P>The trial judge determined that the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant contained insufficient probable cause. The judge threw out the case, ruling that without probable cause, the warrant should not have been issued, and the evidence would never have been obtained. The U.S. appealed the ruling, stating that the police believed the warrant to be legally granted and seized the evidence in good faith. The Supreme Court agreed, and further determined that the use of the exclusionary rule in some instances can be costly to society. In this instance, a guilty man would go free, society would lose respect for the legal process, and police would be handcuffed in future investigations. </P> </p> <p> <P><i>Leon</i> played a major role in assuaging the public's growing concern over the legal system's emphasis on defendants' rights. High-profile cases in which a defendant was acquitted due to a "technicality" had caused public outrage. Many people felt the exclusionary rule unfairly hindered law enforcement and favored criminal behavior. The <i>Leon</i> decision provided police and prosecutors were more freedom to obtain evidence.<br></P> <P>By contrast, civil libertarians were angered by what they viewed as an unfair limitation on the Fourth Amendment. They do not want the government to have expanded power and authority to obtain evidence, fearing the government could target any group or person that disagrees with it. The reach of the exclusionary rule continues to be contested in the courts and a topic of public debate. <br></P> <P>The information age presents a new set of issues to deal with under the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act of 2001 allows anti-terrorism authorities to monitor e-mail and Internet traffic in order to prevent terrorist attacks. The government argues that cyberspace is public domain and that no warrants should be needed to access information. Civil libertarians are fearful that the privacy rights of individuals will be compromised for the interests of national security. The Supreme Court will soon have to determine to what degree the Fourth Amendment applies to online activities. </P> </p> <p id="TextCopyright">Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education</p>