Definitionof and how it was created
ExclusionaryLaw represents a Constitutional Law-based principle which protectsthe suspects against violation of their rights. This regulationhinders the use of evidence obtained by the police or prosecutors inviolation of the defendants’ rights (Fisher,2015).The defendants are given the power to object the evidence that wasnot acquired through a legal means even though the informationobtained during the process shows that they are guilty. This law wasformed after the Supreme Court’s reversal of the defendant’sconviction. This rule was formulated as a remedy for the violationsof 4th Amendment, and it began after the Boyd v. the United States.The formulation of this rule was also due to the self-incriminationof the 5th Amendment regarding Boyd’s case (Fisher,2015).
Purposeof the Law
Sincethe constitution merely excludes people from unreasonable searches,this judge-based rule is crucial in ensuring just and fair judgmentof the suspects. Moreover, the Constitution does not outline theprocedures to be followed by the judiciary once the cases ofunreasonable searches and seizures arise. Therefore, the regulationcomes handy to rectify these issues. The principal purpose of thisprovision is to prevent the lawyers and judges from using evidencethat was acquired through methods that violate the constitution onthe victims (Fisher,2015).
Reasonswhy the Law doesn’t apply in the Civil Cases
Thelaw only applies to the criminal cases and not the civil ones. Incriminal proceedings, the defendant is prosecuted for the crimesagainst the wrongs committed by the society as a whole. These crimesinclude assault, arson, robbery, or murder. Therefore, the police andlawyers have a right to use relevant evidence to prove the defendantsguilty or not guilty. The victim may seek to hide informationregarding the case, and the police officers may use invalid methodsto retrieve the evidence (Johnson,2016).In a civil case, two or more private bodies are involved in a case.The case commences when one individual presents evidence showing theharm caused by another party. Therefore, civil cases do notnecessarily require determination of the evidence used was legally orillegally obtained. The police do not issue the data and informationpresented regarding the case. In most cases, the civil cases do notinvolve arrest of the defendant prior the case hearing.
Efficiencyof the of Law in the Achievement of the intended Purpose
Despitethe perceived benefits of this law, the judiciary has never been atpeace it. Recent debates have evolved regarding the relevance ofthese principles to the protection of individuals’ right toprivacy. Some experts of the law have also argued on the right of thecourts to create these measures. However, the most significantconcern in the recent past was whether the law meets the set purpose.According to the later development of this rule, the police couldstill use evidence obtained through invalid methods due to the ‘goodfaith’ policy (Johnson,2016).This system allows the use of the evidence obtained through aninvalid warrant if the police believed it to be valid. The otherexceptions include the inevitable and independent Source Doctrines.This rule is relevant in upholding the constitution of the statessince the application of the 4th Amendment relies on it. Themisconduct of the police as the law requires being regulated throughthe application of this court-based regulation. This law functionsunder three fundamentals including the illegal action of the police,the evidence of the actions of the officers, and the determination ofthe link between the unauthorized actions and the obtained evidence.The law seeks to protect a defendant’s 5th Amendment rights.
Alternativetowards achievement of the purpose
Thereexist other rules of evidence which can be used to ensure therelevance of the information use to solve a case. These rules are,however, based on the evaluation of the facts given. For instance, ifaudio evidence obtained through force is not reliable during theprosecution process. Nonetheless, these alternative rules do notoffer the protection against seizures and illegal searches (Strossen,2015).
Thislaw has been effective in the provision of justice for the wronglysearched citizen. In some instances, the improperly searched victimsmay be found guilty, and failure to offer them justice at this pointcan be considered unjust. The wrongdoers, in this case, are thepolice officers. The innocent citizens who were victims of the actare not also compensated. On the other hand, this regulation targetsthe wrong individuals in a case. It provides a windfall for thecriminals whose evidence of committed crime was acquired illegally(Strossen,2015).
TheLaw’s Determent of the Illegal Searches and Seizures
Thislaw also deters the law enforcement from the conduction of illegalseizures and searches on the suspect (Strossen,2015).The defendant is protected by the 4th Amendment of the Constitutionto from these illegal activities. On the other hand, if a policeofficer forcefully searches the evidence for the buildings of thedefendant, the exclusionary law prevents the use of the obtainedpieces of evidence in courts.
Parametersand Remedies for Preventing Violation
Asan effort to avoid the violation of this law, certain conditions thatare exempted from its application, as well as principles regardingits implementation, have been put in place. This rule makes sure thatonly relevant evidence is admissible in the courts. Excluded evidenceis not applied in the decision-making process for some reasons apartfrom the one of proved irrelevance. The good faith of the police canlead to the application of the wrongly acquired evidence indecision-making. The police must demonstrate that they had nointention of breaking the law. Additionally, if the unlawfullyacquired information was acquired from an independent party, thecourt is allowed to proceed with the judgment using this piece ofinformation. The same case applies if the evidence was receivedinevitably (Strossen,2015).
QualifiedImmunity and its Applicability to the
Thequalified immunity makes the exclusionary law the only remedy for thedefendants when the police violate their rights. The defendants’Miranda rights or protection against unreasonable search are upheldthrough the influence of the immunity (Strossen,2015).The police might succeed in violating the statutory rights of thesuspect, but the qualified immunity protects them from a lawsuit.However, the defendant might be prosecuted if the officers prove thatthey believed that their actions were legal.
Impactof the Mapp v. Ohio and the US v. Leon
Theruling of Mapp v. Ohio case serves as the landmark in the criminallaw’s judgment in which the protection of the people’s rightsagainst searches and seizures was a requirement (Thomas2014).The Supreme Court used the principle of selective incorporation.Therefore, the case led to the acknowledgment of the law in thefederal government. Later on, the recognition of the application ofthe 4th Amendment in both state and local levels was achieved duringthe case’s ruling. On the other hand, the US v. Leon led to therecognition of the police’s act of good faith (Thomas2014).The case resulted in the exception of the exclusionary law if it’sproven that police acted in good faith.
Fisher,M. E. (2015). Ohio is Jonesing for Automatic License Plate Readers:Why This May Violate Your Fourth Amendment Rights and What The OhioLegislature Should Do About It. Clev.St. L. Rev., 64,329.
Johnson,M. C. (2016). Discovering Arrest Warrants during Illegal TrafficStops: The Lower Courts` Wrong Turn in the Exclusionary RuleAttenuation Analysis. Miss.LJ, 85,225.
Strossen,N. (2015). Beyond the Fourth Amendment: Additional ConstitutionalGuarantees That Mass Surveillance Violates. DrakeL. Rev., 63,1143.
ThomasIII, G. C. (2014). Mapp v. Ohio: Doomed from the Beginning. OhioSt. J. Crim. L., 12,289.
No related posts.