The Exclusionary Rule is a legal code that states that no object, if obtained without a proper search warrant or illegally, may be used in court. Furthermore, under the constitutional law, this rule holds true. However, this legal principle has, in the last many years, been very contentious since many do not believe that it is constitutional and of great assistance in coming up with the truth in various criminal proceedings. Besides, others have the notion that it helps in put off the police misdemeanors.
Since it is in the knowledge of people that they ought to enjoy the right to privacy, a warrant has to be there in order for them to be searched. This warrant is imperative when conducting a search (Scheidegger, 2009). Apart from the rule offering protection to people, it also helps in enforcing the aforesaid right to privacy. In facilitating its enforcement, first, a police officer or his/her agent must have performed an illegal action. Thereafter, secured evidence ought to be there and finally, the illegal action and the evidence secured have to be casually connected.
By the attenuation doctrine, if the secured evidence is not a function of the illegal action at hand, then the evidence can not be qualified to the exclusionary rule. Despite a situation having met the above principal elements, there are also some exceptions that are provided for the rule. Independent Source Doctrine, being the first exception states that the evidence secured is apprehended in two perspectives; it being illegal and at the same time legal. This exception was fashioned in the case between Segura and Colon and the U.
S. Supreme Court (Scheidegger, 2009). The Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery is the second exception and it arose from the case of Nix versus Williams. In this exception, evidence is physically secured through illegal means initially but can also be seized hypothetically as not have been illegal. Moreover, the prosecution must have prove that had the evidence not have been illegally seized, it would have been seized through the hypothetical means by an evidence preponderance.
Good faith sums up the exceptions of this rule, where a magistrate hands a police officer a warrant which the former has to act n to seize evidence. However, good faith can be compromised if it can be shown by the defense that the magistrate gave out the warrant after being misled by the police officer through deceitful information. Another limitation of the exception of good faith is in the case that the magistrate does not remain neutral and detached in executing his/her job. The exclusionary rule has some cost implications associated with it.
For instance, the process involved in liberation of the offenders who are guilty. This calls for the tort remedy aimed at discouraging the police from searches that are illegal. Another cost associated with this rule is the public being convicted without having necessary violated the constitution. On the contrary, this rule has also some benefits especially to the public. It has a positive influence on the police officers since they have engaged in trainings where they have received the relevant constitutional knowledge and as such, the rule has succeeded it its determent function.
It has also made the social cost incurred in illegal searches to be modest (Barnett, 1998). The rule closes the gap that any sanction amounts to a gain to the government. Alternatives to this rule have also arisen. For example, the imposition of liability on police municipalities and departments, assessing damages that are punitive and abolishing the defense immunity of good faith in the community. This rule, in my opinion still ought to remain operation.
This is because it will do much in not only modeling the behavior of the police officers but also reduce the social cost associated with illegal searches. References Barnett, R. (1998). The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. New York: Clarendon Press Scheidegger, K. (2009). The Exclusionary Rule: Sesmic Shift or Minor Blip? Retrieved on 10 August 2010 from http://www. crimeandconsequences. com/crimblog/2009/01/the-exclusionary-rule-seismic. html