The Exclusionary Rule in the United States
In the United States, the exclusionary rule was legalized as a way to throw out any evidence that had been improperly obtained by law enforcement and could not be used in a criminal prosecution. (Slobogin 13). The regulation was created to safeguard each person's constitutional freedom. The exclusionary rule was not developed on the basis of statutes presented by the legislature because it is a court-based rule, but rather on the recommendation of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Weeks v. United States case, where the exclusionary rule was established in 1914, Chief Justice Edward served as the judge. According to the court, the unlawfully obtained evidence by the police in contravention of the Fourth Amendment cannot be permissible in Federal courts. The exclusionary rule was in 1961 eventually extended to apply in state courts with the purpose to detect police misconduct (Re 1894). Moreover, the concern of judges is the acquisition of the evidence rather than what that evidence attempts to prove. Therefore, any illegal action by the prosecution or police to acquire incriminatory results yields evidence commonly called “fruit of the poisonous tree,” which caused the case to be dismissed (Slobogin 17).
The Impact of the Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule disputes that police discipline will be helpful in any misconduct that is done to citizens. Therefore, citizens who have their rights violated are entitled to file a suit against the police, especially if the evidence is illegally gathered. The exclusionary rule enhances the society’s commitment towards constitutional values (Slobogin 20). However, minimal impact supporters of the rule find it destructive as it allows guilty defendants to escape trial. For example, police officers may have acquired a warrant to search the home of a suspected drug dealer. Since they do not conduct the search, they still enter the house. In this case, any evidence they acquire will not be admitted by a court in a criminal case.
Challenges and Issues Surrounding the Exclusionary Rule
Most jurors and the police ascertain that a great number of non-inclusive evidence in a case is allowed in the courtroom. A police officer, for example, who unlawfully stops a car for a search and finds illegal firearms, can on false grounds claim that the driver ignored and ran over the stop sign yet the guns were not concealed (Tomkovicz 381). In this case, most police officers tend to change their testimony rather than change their behaviors in order to comply with the exclusionary rule. In such a situation, the exclusionary rule enhances police deception. In addition, the rule plays a greater role than the deterrence. By making it deterrence, the exclusionary rule would be better applied if all states use it to ensure equality for everyone (Re 1895). In this context, the court erroneously held the evidence against a previously arrested criminal defendant without any credible cause and warrant. The judge held that this was constitutionally right because of the exception of good faith. This exception does not exclude the evidence that law enforcers obtain by reasonably relying on search warrants that appear to be invalid (Re 1912).
The Case of Davis v. United States
In the case of Davis v. United States, police officer Curtis Miller detained Davis, the petitioner, for falsifying his name in a usual traffic stop. After conducting a search, Officer Miller found a gun in the vehicle. Davis was then charged as a convicted criminal for possessing a firearm (Tomkovicz 382). During trial, Davis sought to suppress the evidence from the gun but the district court denied his request. Due to Davis’s pending appeal, the Supreme Court held that the case of Arizona v. Gant in relation to Davis’s case is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Davis argued that the application of the retroactive Gant’s case should have supported the prohibition of the gun as evidence. According to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the gun should be treated as evidence. Davis went ahead to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the United States upholds that the use of gun as evidence should be acknowledged since Officer Miller applied rational good faith to ensure the search was properly conducted (Tomkovicz 383). The case will therefore establish whether the retroactive relation of the exclusionary rule requires the suppression of evidence found under a previous rule, or whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be applied.
Analytical Opinion on the Exclusionary Rule
In my view, the exclusionary rule should be used in American courts. For example, any ruling in favor of Davis would not prevent invalid searches by the police. In essence, police officers are required to follow the law as established by the Courts. By applying the exclusionary rule in cases of retroactive applications, the actions of law enforcers will not be affected and the rights of the Fourth Amendment will not be protected (Slobogin 16). In fact, the exception of good faith in the exclusionary rule will strengthen the protection of the Fourth Amendment since the Court may alter evidence rules without panic that the evidence gathered under the previous rule may be excluded. I also believe the exclusionary rule fosters respect of the law including the criminal justice system. I think the confidence of law enforcers will be undermined if they follow the exclusionary rule faithfully while conducting searches only to find the results are inadmissible owing to some changes in law. Therefore, applying the exclusionary rule does not necessarily impose inequality. In fact, the invalidation of rightfully collected evidence should be averted as this would discourage the reckless disrespect of constitutional requirements.
Works Cited
Re, Richard M. "The Due Process Exclusionary Rule." The Harvard Law Review Association, vol. 127, no. 7, 2014, pp. 1894-1918.
Slobogin, C. "A comparative perspective on the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases. Vanderbilt. Public Law Research Paper No. 1, 2013, pp.13-21.
Tomkovicz, James J. "Davis v. United States: The Exclusion Revolution Continues." Ohio St. J. Crim. L., vol.9, 2011, pp.381-384.
