The Exclusionary Rule is important to both police and the public because it lays out a clear guideline for action during a police action. Having this rule in place limits the responsibilities that are applied to the officer by stating what they are responsible to gather or not gather during their investigation of a scene. For the public the officer is prevented from illegally conducting search and seizure of a property.
Exclusionary rule causes disregard to all evidence that was not obtained through legal methods (like a lot of the evidence on TV crime shows). By not allowing illegally obtained evidence, due process (the government's respect for the rights of citizens) is achieved as cops will respect the rights of citizens if they know that, if they do not, they won't be able to put a criminal behind bars.
Basically, it's a legal method that guarantees due process is followed by forcing policemen, etc. to obey the law.
The rule says that if the police gain evidence in a way that violates the fourth amendment it may not be admissible against the defendant at trial.
Exclusionary Rule
Supreme Court cases diminished the scope of the exclusionary rule?
Supreme Court cases diminished the scope of the exclusionary rule?
to protect citizens' rights.
The Exclusionary Rule.
Yes, the Exculsionary Rule should be abandoned.
Some potential consequences of the exclusionary law is that it could keep evidence that is pertinent to a case out of the courtroom. If it is the only evidence that could keep be used to convict a guilty person it is problematic.
The Supreme Court created an exception to the exclusionary rule for searches conducted by school administrators.
Fourth Amendment
Probable cause and the exclusionary rule
The legal doctrine established to control police misconduct is called "qualified immunity." This doctrine protects government officials, including police officers, from being held personally liable for civil damages as long as their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
That was not used in this case.