Do you believe this is a legitimate “Exclusionary Rule” case as the mistake in completing the search-warrant application was a technicality or a major mistake? Explain.
Yes, I believe this case is a legitimate exclusionary rule case because the mistake in filling the application of search-warrant was not just a technicality like Patrick Lynch, the boss of Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss said of the ruling, but a major mistake. This mistake was a major mistake because the requirement that the search warrant location be specific is not just a technicality, but it is a core Fourth Amendment principle, which came as a way of barring the general search warrants that were issued to the English soldiers in Boston streets in the 18th century by the British Crown. This general warrants led to the raiding of a private residence and as a result, caused resentment and stirred anger. Therefore, a police officer searching a building of multi-residence today without specifying the location or unit to be searched, and in the process raiding multiple units within the structure is not just a technicality but a violation of the founding principle in the country of America. Because of that, Judge Jack Weinstein was right to let the accused, Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins to walk away by voiding the evidence of the police officer against him through an illegal search, making the ‘Exclusionary Rule” case a legitimate one. As such, Patrick Lynch is wrong to comment on the ruling that the illegal search by the police officers is a technicality that should not suppress evidence, thus, actually subverting public safety and justice.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Exclusionary Rule only protects the guilty. Should there be another remedy?
Even though the primary function of the Exclusionary Rule is to protect the guilty, there should be another remedy. This is because it is difficult to find that the police who have done these illegal searches getting punishment internally. Besides, it is almost impossible to sue a police officer in such cases, and instances, where cops have been criminally charged for these cases, are nearly not existing. As such, the best way to tell whether these police officers were sanction is through the Exclusionary Rule, acting as a deterrent to such illegal searches cases. The Exclusionary rule will serve as a deterrent because it will not only discourage the cops from performing a deliberately unlawful search but also encourages them to use precaution and care to avoid mistakes because subjecting innocent people to illegal search is a violation of right, whether it is out of negligence or malice. Therefore, another remedy of the Exclusionary Rule should be to state how these cops are punished for their irresponsible actions.
Should the officers be disciplined for their raid on the “wrong home?”
Yes, the police officers should be disciplined for their raid on the wrong home due to the following reasons. First, because the police officers know and understand the rules and requirements of filling the specific location in a search warrant, but intentionally neglected that and conducted an illegal search on innocent people. Thus, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment principle, which is illegal and therefore should be punished. In this case, it is in order for the cops to be disciplined for being ruthless and not following the law as required of them. Second, lack of proper care for the police officers to guess the right unit address led to the raiding of innocent families, thus subjecting them to all the terror, violence, and volatile fear “dynamic entry” raid of a drug. As a result, the police officers violated the rights of these innocent family, and as it is the case always, violation of a person’s right is an offense punishable by the law. Therefore, it is right for the cops to be disciplined for a crime of violating the rights of innocent people whether it is by malice or negligence, through raiding their home.
