Legal Aspects
The principles of search and seizure are rather basic according to U.S. legal standards. The process starts with receiving a warrant that specifies the place and reason for the legal seizure of property. The latter, in turn, includes both tangible objects and information possessed by a physical or a legal person. The venue for a warrant application must be specified for the warrant to obtain legal power.
Exclusionary Rule
According to the existing principles of legal search established in U.S. law, the process must align with the standards set in the Fourth Amendment, namely, the presence of proof that the search is warranted (Reno et al. 21). Therefore, the standard known as the Exclusionary Rule was established. The specified regulation implies that any evidence obtained illegally or against the will of its owner is deemed null and void in court (Reno et al. 21).
The reasons for using the identified principle in the context of the contemporary legal environment are rather basic. The Exclusionary rule is supposed to limit the chances for state agents to infringe upon the rights of U.S. residents and abuse their powers. The instances of government agents using unconstitutional tools as the means of obtaining the information that is relevant to a particular case might rise unless the Exclusionary Rule was applied to the present-day legal environment.
Fourth Amendment
The principles on which the Fourth Amendment is based are linked directly to the process of search and seizure. As stressed above, it is crucial to ensure the legality of the search and the subsequent seizure of property, be it physical or information-related. The rights of the U.S. citizens, which the Exclusion Rule described above was designed to protect, were based on the principles stated in the Fourth Amendment. Particularly the entitlement of every American citizen to the same range of rights and freedoms and specifically the right to keep their personal information and possessions (Sood 1563).
According to the principles stated in the Fourth Amendment, it is against the law to perform a warrantless search (45 Conn. B.J. 2, 25, 1971). Therefore, obtaining a warrant must be seen as the first step toward implementing a legal search and possible seizure of one’s possessions. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment guarantees compliance with the basic human rights to which every citizen of the United States is entitled.
Violation
Although the Exclusionary Rule was designed to be followed at all times in an attempt to safeguard the rights and freedom of U.S. citizens, there are scenarios in which the specified legal standard can and should be violated. However, it should be noted that the specified scenarios need to be viewed as inapplicability of the Exclusionary Rule rather than violation thereof. The specified distinction is critical for retaining the principles of democracy and basic human rights when conducting a legal investigation and presenting a case in court.
Since the very notion of violation implies that the Fourth Amendment, on which the Exclusionary Rule is based, is subverted, it is essential to implement the specified concept as the inapplicability of the Exclusionary Rule to a particular case. The latter, in turn, may involve the instances of civil trials, as well as the scenarios that involve a grand jury proceeding.
Works Cited
45 Conn. B.J. 2, 25, 1971.
Reno, Janet, et al. Fire and Arson Scene Evidence: A Guide for Public Safety Personnel. 2nd ed. NCJ, 2000.
Sood, Avani Metha. “Cognitive Cleansing: Experimental Psychology and the Exclusionary Rule.” Geo. LJ, vol. 103, 2014, pp. 1543-1602.