The founding fathers of America were aware of the stressing nature of police intrusiveness in their unreasonable searches and seizures. Therefore, they included the bill of rights in the constitution. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments would aid prevent such searches and seizures by limiting evidence obtained by the police or law enforcers illegally. They enhance the privacy of the citizens protecting them from intrusive nature of the law officers that may violate their privacy.
Under the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule is used in criminal cases to suppress the evidence where the Fourth Amendment was violated during the arrest of the defendants. The rule has over the years to reduce police brutality during arrests, searches and seizures without a valid warrant, and enforced confession ("Exclusionary Rule", 2017). The law is only applicable if the defendant can provide a subjective reason of privacy violation and violation of the Fourth Amendment during the arrest. On the other hand, the police may limit the suppression of the evidence gained if they acted in good faith and reasonable reason to use force during the arrest for instance if the accused resisted arrest or the search and seizure resulted from the defendant being or acting suspiciously to warrant the search and seizure (LLC, 2017). Since the first case Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) where the rule was applied there have been arguments on the application of the rules with some supporting its use whereas others, see the law as a way for criminals to walk free. I, being a supporter of the latter, I believe the rule helps criminals get off on a technicality and should be reviewed to ensure justice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439 (1966) proves that the negligible technical issues like in Miranda’s case where the arresting officers forced Miranda to confess her crime. The officer did not comply with the arrest procedure by reciting the famous warning that anything the suspect says will be used in the Court of Law…. The failure to do so was a lesser crime compared to kidnapping and raping the young woman. The custodian police officer violated the Fifth Amendment by forcing Miranda to incriminate himself which led to the 5 to 4 rule in favor that the evidence was illegal as the confession are "presumptively compelled." (Lippman, 2013). Hence, should not be used in a trial to prove guilt. The release from prison of Miranda following the crime he had committed which warranted 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment justifies my claim that the law enables criminals to get off on a technicality. I believe that although the ruling would aid in decreasing police errors by ensuring they constitutionally obtain their evidence, the criminals do not follow the rules and are protected by the exclusionary rule. The Mapp case where the defendant was able to get off with possession of pornographic items due to the violation of her privacy protected under the Fourth Amendment further justifies my argument.
The exclusionary rule limits the police from undertaking their duties, for instance, suppose a police officer legally arrest John for possessing cocaine. During interrogation, John claims that Mark, Jane’s boyfriend sold him the drug when they were partying in his house, John’s house. The police later reason that since Jane is Mark’s friend, they are business together and Mark being the peddler, Jane must be storing the drugs in her house to ensure that the police do not find any drugs if they search his house. The police therefore instead of obtaining a warrant to search Mark’s house they acquire a warrant to search Jane’s house. Following the search, the police find 50 kilograms of cocaine thus seizes the drugs and arrests Jane. In all reasoning, the police were warranted to search due to their reasoning, and thus the drugs should be used as evidence in the case. On the other hand, Jane may use the exclusionary rule to escape justice by questioning the reasoning of the police as John did not state of her involvement with the drugs. She may claim that search and seizure violated her privacy which may hold as the house is private and she does not expect intrusion. The warrant although valid was acquired without reasonable justification for acquiring the warrant to search Jane’s home. The warrant will be deemed invalid, and Jane walks free as the drugs cannot be used to prosecute her as they would violate both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments (Lippman, 2013).
The United States v. Jones 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) where Jones, the defendant argued that the GPS tracking device on the Jeep he used was a violation of his privacy under the Fourth Amendment thus filed a motion to suppress the evidence gained from the apparatus. The Court ruled that the evidence acquired when he was in his home or private place would be suppressed but evidence obtained when the jeep was parked in a public place, or public roads would be used a decision reversed following an Appeal as the warrant was invalid for installing the GPS device. These loopholes benefit criminals by allowing them to break the law and use the loopholes to evade prosecution.
Opponents of my perception claim that the rule protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizure and police brutality. The need to provide reasonable evidence that the Fourth Amendment was violated during the arrest or when the evidence was gathered limits the defendant ability to get off on a technicality. The most common example of this argument is Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), whereby the exclusionary rule did not apply as the Mc Fadden, the officer who arrested the suspect, had a reasonable reason to search Terry and his partner. The police actions were reasonable beyond doubt as Terry were looking at the store as preparing to rob it which was confirmed by the gun Terry tried to hide during the search. The proponents of the exclusionary rule claim that the police are trained to make the right calls and follow procedures, and the provision of good faith and reasonable belief of wrongdoing enables criminals to face justice. The rule helps stop searches and seizures without which it can be very hard to observe the Fourth Amendment.
Conclusion
The argument above explains the different perceptions of both the proponents and opponents of the rule. The cases used to provide that the law provided loopholes that help evade justice on a technicality but the other hand, the rule is essential in limiting violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I believe the exclusionary rules needs changes to limit the cases where the criminals get off on a technicality.
References
Exclusionary Rule . (2017). LII / Legal Information Institute . Retrieved 10 June 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
United States v. Jones 565 US ___ (2012) . (2012). Justia Law . Retrieved 10 June 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-1259/
Lippman, M. R. (2013). Criminal procedure . Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publications, Inc.
LLC, S., (2017). How The Exclusionary Rule Backfired And Crushed Americans’ Constitutional Rights - . Steeringlaw.com . Retrieved 10 June 2017, from http://steeringlaw.com/the-unintended-distorting-effect-of-the-exclusionary-rule-on-american-constitutional-rights/
Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) . (2017). Justia Law . Retrieved 10 June 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/case.html
Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) . (2017). Justia Law . Retrieved 10 June 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html
Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) . (2017). Justia Law . Retrieved 10 June 2017, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/
