Police and Exclusionary Rule Applies

Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule According to “Legal Information Institute” (n. d. ), “The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule). This rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.

If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree. ” The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.

Thus, the rule is not triggered when courthouse errors lead police officers to mistakenly believe that they have a valid search warrant, because excluding the evidence would not deter police officers from violating the law in the future Exceptions to the Rule There are exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule and they are listed as, another source is found that is untainted and had a role in finding the evidence. The next is evidence would have been located anyway, regardless of error or bad evidence. The next exception is that evidence may be used for witness removal on cross examination.

While exception is that a witness’s identification of the defendant is not excluded if the witness could identify the defendant before arrested. Grand jury proceedings and evidence involved is excluded, and finally state agents that thought that they were complying with the Fourth Amendment. Costs and Benefits Some say that the rational choice model of criminal behavior predicts that if the Mapp ruling did affect the behavior of police— altering either the probability of conviction or detection then citizens should respond by ncreasing their level of unlawful activity. Since the exclusionary rule increases the costs of police investigations, the police will respond by substituting away from those activities that require a warrant towards those that do not (Rubin, 1998). This train of thought while in 1989 may have been progressive; the thought process was way off. Police have risen to the challenge to get evidence without breaking rights of those involved and properly handling those Amendment rights.

Many things have been learned during these times like obtaining a search warrant is worth the work put into it, if a warrant is filed correctly, listing the proper information, and holding the proper property then getting a conviction is a simple thing. Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule Prosecution of police for trespassing, this can be done if the exclusionary rule did not exist. The prosecutors and the juries would be reluctant to do such. Civil tort action against officers, which can include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law.

Administrative discipline by police internal affairs would be rampant if there was no rule to assist them with gathering evidence. There are many alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule but none are going to assist in the criminal justice system, this rule helps to balance everything on both sides of this system. There would be chaos in the courts, bad evidence, civil disputes, and offenders that have their rights violated. Conclusion The Exclusionary Rule was created in the hope to protect citizen’s rights while allowing the criminal justice system to do its job effectively.

This rule has taken into consideration what the citizen goes through as well as what the police must do to properly execute their jobs. Exceptions to the rule, allows for accidents to happen, evidence to be gathered and submitted if no malice is detected, this allows the criminal justice system to work and stay balanced. These exceptions were created in the knowledge that the people that work in the criminal justice system are human, while ensuring that the offender has rights and they are protected. In a world without the Exclusionary Rule, civil liberties of both sides on the criminal justice ence will be negatively affected. The citizens could have the police come in and ransack their homes and take evidence without anyone’s consent and the other side leaves the entire criminal justice system open for attack. Keeping the Exclusionary Rule in place will ensure that the criminal justice system will continue to work as it was solely intended too. References Legal Information Institute. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://www. law. cornell. edu/wex/exclusionary_rule/ Rubin, P. H. (1998). EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ON CRIME RATES. Retrieved from http://economics. emory. edu/home/assets/… /rubin_98_03_paper. pdf