Exclusionary Rule Evaluation
The establishment of the Fourth Amendment protected the US citizens from the unwarranted searches and seizures. Its content implied not only the formalizing of the arrest procedures but prevented self-incrimination
and illegal evidenced collection to be used in the trial. This paper aims at observing this issue called exclusionary rule and evaluating its exceptions and extension. It includes costs and benefits to the rule along
with the alternative remedies to it.
The exclusionary rule was created to prevent authorities’ and individuals’ power abuse and unconstitutional actions’ prevention (Worrall, 2014, p. 40). The Bill of Rights did not specify the origin and the ways of
evidence obtainment to prove guilt. This factor created certain controversy as it implied an individual or authority could obtain evidence illegally and it could be accepted in the trial. Consequently, unconstitutional actions could be tolerated with for the variety of other reasons with the justification of “the greater good.” Boyd v. United States (1886) created a precedent when the Supreme Court excluded the evidence that would have made
the suspect testify against himself. Those actions were deemed illegal “under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitution” (Worrall, 2014, p. 40). Mapp v. Ohio (1961) put the full end to the questionable procedures,
including the silver platter doctrine and unreasonable handcuffing to perform searches. Thus, the purpose of accepting the exclusionary rule was disobedience to the Federal Constitution discouragement and power abuse
prevention.
The rule took certain exceptions for the sake of formalizing special circumstances for the search and prevention of wrongful perceptions. The United States v. Leon (1984) was the first exception that stood for “good faith issue” (Chapter 6 Issue 2: Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule, 2017). The “good faith” means that the law enforcement officials performed searches based on the warrant issued by the neutral body though the probable cause for it might be lacking. This exception, on the one hand, fully complies with the Fourteenth Amendment and the concept of the due process of law. On the other, it can actually motivate police to issue warrants on the slightest suspicion or the utterly subjective reasons, e.g. personal dislike or distrust.
The second exception is a parole revocation hearing (Worrall, 2014, p. 45). It assumes that the parole officer and the parolee do not hold hostility against each other that might have caused parole officer’s Constitution breach to obtain evidence against the culprit. This issue is highly debatable as no proof exists a parole officer is a detached and neutral body. The human factor remains applicable as in the prior example. The third exception is an impeachment one that implies questioning the credibility of a witness (Worrall, 2014, p. 47). Thus, the unlawful evidence might be excluded from the trial while can be re-used against the testimony as in Walder v. …
