The Exclusionary Rule in US Criminal Trials
Protections from Warrantless Search and Seizure
Nov 29, 2008
The interest protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to have government stay out of a person’s home and property, unless there has been prior approval by a judge. If the judge has found there is probable cause to conduct a search the judge will authorize the search by issuing a warrant. Without a warrant, generally, a search of a person or place or a seizure of property by government agents is illegal.
The Fourth Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Enforcement of Fourth Amendment Rights
The Fourth Amendment announces the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but how that right is to be enforced is not specified. While different enforcement methods have been suggested over time, the Supreme Court has settled on a single method as the most effective means to make right real. That method is to ban the use of evidence in a criminal trial that was obtained during a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The evidence is excluded from trial, hence the exclusionary rule.
Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule
There are at least two alternatives to the exclusionary rule as mechanisms to deter illegal conduct by police officers. One is to charge police with crimes for illegally entering homes and buildings or for illegally taking someone else’s property. As a practical matter, the police are members of law enforcement and criminal or even administrative sanctions against the police are rare. Such official sanctions are imposed only in the most egregious instances of misconduct.
There is the possibility of enforcing Fourth Amendment rights through a civil suit
An individual who has had his property or person illegally searched or seized has legal remedies against the police by way of a lawsuit for damages. This remedy poses difficulty as well, since most cases of police misconduct are decided by juries from the community who have been taught to respect and honor law enforcement and are likely to award damages again in only the most serious Fourth Amendment violations.
When the Exclusionary Rule Applies
There are three elements to the exclusionary rule. These elements are:
- An illegal action by a police officer, or by someone acting as an agent of the police.
- There must be evidence obtained.
- There must be a connection between the illegal action and the evidence obtained. If there is an illegal action, but the action was related to the collection of the evidence, the evidence is not excluded from the criminal trial.
The defense may file a motion to suppress the evidence if it believes there has been a Fourth Amendment violation and provide information to the court on the above points. If the prosecution fails to rebut the defense claim of a Fourth Amendment violation, the evidence will be suppressed from the case-in-chief. This means the evidence may not be used while the prosecution is trying to prove a defendant’s guilt.
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
There are four principle exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule. They are:
- The Independent Source Doctrine. When evidence is obtained by two methods, one being illegal and the other legal, the evidence will be allowed in court.
- The Inevitable Discovery Rule. When evidence is obtained illegally, but because of circumstances the evidence would have been found by legal means, the evidence will be allowed in court.
- The Good Faith Exception. If an officer obtains evidence with a warrant that he believed was properly issued then that evidence will be allowed in court even if it is later shown that there were certain technical problems with the warrant.
- Probable Cause/Search Incident to Arrest. When an warrantless arrest is made with probable cause and an immediate search takes place related to that arrest, the evidence will be admissible.
Fourth Amendment Enforcement Created by Supreme Court
The Constitution does not provide for the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court applied the rule in Weeks v. United States in 1914 and to the states in Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. While the rule is controversial in that often known guilty defendants are freed as a result of its application, the intent of the rule is to protect all citizens from illegal government activity. It is an attempt to balance the competing interests of protecting citizens from crime, and protecting citizens from the government.
 |
