The exclusionary rule is a judicial regulation founded on statutory law, impeding the use of evidence possessed or analyzed in contravention of the statutory laws of the United States in a manner infringing on the accused Fourth Amendment rights. The regulation is applied by an accused in forestalling evidence used in a court of law against them. Under the rule, courts of law overturn any proof that the government gathers or collects through an unconstitutional search or seizure. The practice is for protecting citizens from illegal investigation and invasion of privacy. It provides a solution and moderation for criminal prosecution from prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in contravention of an individual’s right as enshrined in the constitution Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. The rule also protects against violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. The exclusionary rule applies to proof that results from the constitutional breach and comes into play when such a breach leads directly to compromising evidence.
The history of this rule reflects this contradiction. The common law did not exclude evidence on account of unevenness in how a party received it. Instead, a citizen wronged by an illegal search could sue the lawbreakers for the offence of encroachment. Anyone who invaded another person’s property was guilty of trespassing and had to pay for the damages (Ferguson 561). However, the police did not target the rich and powerful but targeted the poor, uneducated, and minority races. The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule early in the 20th century. The Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule in the case of Weeks v U.S. (Jacobi 585a). The issue leading to its creation involved a situation in which an individual convicted on evidence obtained without a warrant or a legal justification (Jacobi 585a). Weeks case premised on suggesting that when the police exceed their constitutional authority in searching for evidence, that search must be null and void. Later in 1961, the highest court in the land made the regulation in the State regarding Mapp vs Ohio (Jacobi 585b). In MPP vs Ohio, the purpose of the law was to avert police misconduct and allow the defendants to challenge the compatibility of evidence by bringing a pre-trial motion to subdue the proof.
The exclusionary rule is justified under the law to hold the executive within the limits of the law and prevent government lawlessness from becoming rampant (Re 1885). The application of this rule to preserve the rule of law and judicial integrity has endured until today. The Supreme Court previously applied the convention in 1891 but then rejected it “without much explanation.” Later on, the Argentina Supreme Court held that the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence is inconsistent with the rule of law and impairment to the regular administration of justice. The exclusionary rule was mainly applicable to some cases, particularly those involving weapons and gambling offences. The exclusionary rule applies typically in many situations, but there were some cases where the law was not applicable. For example, when private individuals do searches, there is a violation of the regulations during sentencing and even noncriminal proceedings. At the time of the police action, the law in force, not the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the activity is illegal for the exclusionary rule.
However, a significant reduction of the exclusionary rule came in 1984, with the adoption of the “good faith” exception. The Supreme Court created the exclusion for evidence acquired due to officers’ intention, good-faith reliance on a warrant, later found to be flawed. The court held that the regulation is not relevant if the police search objectively, with reasonable reliance on binding judicial precedent, even an accused favorably challenges that precedent. The court also used Leon to allow the admittance of proof gathered incident to an arrest, based on an erroneous belief that there were undeniable facts to cause arrest. The Supreme Court depended upon three points as set out in the constitution to conclude whether police collected the presented evidence legally. The regulation comes into force on all cases brought to court within the jurisdiction of the United States legal system, irrespective of whether or not they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal) or even visitors.
The exclusionary rule aims at curtailing the work of police officers who overreach the law, but rather the only purpose for this rule is to deter future police misconduct by overstepping their mandate, just as the Supreme Court describes it. However, different countries worldwide have legal systems that differ in areas concerning reasons they proclaim to pursue the exclusionary rule to preserve an individual’s human rights. The underlying purpose of the exclusionary rule was to provide the victims of human rights violations with an adequate remedy when or protection of their rights enshrined in the constitution. The State had to ensure the safety of its citizens, their right to a fair trial, their right to privacy, and the right to be free from arbitrary and illegal searches and seizures by police. The exclusionary rule has benefited society since the violation of human rights by the police officers is kept in check, unlike before when they had the power and authority to do anything when collecting evidence to prove a suspect’s guilt. The exclusionary rule was a powerful deterrent to police misconduct. This rule should continue to be applied to the notion of innocent until proven guilty and should legally prove guilt. Otherwise, there is a high chance that a guilty individual might be set free.
The exclusionary rule promotes the search for truth and integrity of the criminal justice system. Whether it is party-oriented or court-oriented, any procedural system must meet the specific requirements of evidence collection as set out in the country’s laws in finding the truth. Whereas while upholding an individual’s judicial rights, the rule assumes that the court will trace their distinction and nobility if they based their decision on evidence gathered through gross violations of the law. In cautioning against police misconduct, the exclusionary rule also applies. Most often, it is the police who break the rules concerning the acquisition of evidence. Thus the integrity aspect of criminal procedure is; therefore, most unprotected on the policy level. When considering human rights, the exclusionary rule provides the victims of human rights violations with effective therapy. This theory is applied in several countries the world over, including Germany and Switzerland.
The rule is vital because it prevents the prosecution from adopting all evidence collected in contravention of the United States Constitution. The law also ensures consideration and protection of every citizen’s rights without breach of the statutory regulations. The rule keeps going because there is no acceptable substitute. Freeing the guilty is unappealing, and in many instants, the courts have pursued to keep away that result by diminishing the constitutions Fourth Amendment. Even though the exclusionary rule has some negative impacts on society, the positive effects are of more concern. The exclusionary rule concluded that other remedies have been valueless and fruitless in covering adherence to constitutional provisions.
Works Cited
Re, Richard M. “The Due Process Exclusionary Rule.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 127. 2013. p. 1885.
Jacobi, Tonja. “The Law and Economics of the Exclusionary Rule.” Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 87. 2011. p. 585.
Ferguson, Andrew Guthrie. “The Exclusionary Rule in the Age of Blue Data.” Vanderbilt Law Review, vol. 72. 2019. p. 561.