The Exclusionary Rule

… Definitions, purposes, and the Fourth Amendment

The following paper is meant to define the Exclusionary Rule, present the purpose for its existence, and show the direct relation of it to the Fourth Amendment. We will be looking at benefits and detriments to the idea of abolishing this rule as well. It is the authors hope that this paper will further enlighten those reading it regarding their individual rights and the absolute importance of maintaining those rights.

The Exclusionary Rule can be defined as, “The principle based on federal CONSTITUTIONAL LAW that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect’s right to be free from unreasonable SEARCHES AND SEIZURES cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (Law.Jrank, 2009) The Constitutional law that this Ruling is based on is the Fourth Amendment, which states word for word the following. “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.” (Fourth Amendment, 2009) As one can easily tell, the Rule and the Amendment are both meant to restrict police power and to give the ordinary citizen rights.

There have been arguments that this rule is un-necessary. The Republican majority in 1995 attempted to negate this ruling, fortunately for the average citizen this attempt was overturned. Again, in the recent years there have been further attempts by both sides to adjust or take away this Rule. One such attempt was made when the Patriot Act was passed, while according to the letter of the Act it is meant for foreign terrorists, it has been used within the United States for non-terrorist persons.

According to the Department of Justice, 2005 “Using a Patriot Act provision, FBI agents and examiners were able to trace Darlene Fisher’s messages to a server in Topeka, find Darlene Fisher’s e-mail address, and then trace it to a house in Melvern, Kansas. Darlene Fisher’s real name was actually Lisa Montgomery. Montgomery was arrested and subsequently confessed. Bobbie Jo’s baby, Victoria Jo Stinnett, was found alive less than 24 hours after she was cut from her mother’s womb and she was returned to her father.”

While you will hear arguments, stating that it cannot be used here in the United States that can be shown to be false as one can attest via the above reference. The use of this Act in the United States shows that many in our law enforcement community and government are unwilling to follow the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule. It is this author’s opinion that there is no argument that justifies the destruction of our founding documents especially regarding our legal rights.

Some people have argued that we should return to Common Law, this unfortunately could also be seen as a serious mistake. “As stated in a 17^th Century English legal treatise: “And where a Man arrests another, who is actually guilty of the Crime for which he is arrested, it seems, That he needs not in justifying it, set forth any special Cause of his Suspicion, but may say in general, that the Party feloniously did such a Fact, for which he arrested him … .” (Tinsley, Kinsella, Block, 2004) Common law was clear that the authority to pass judgment tends to outweigh the general rights of another. English Common law allowed certain liberties against the common person simply because a person in power decided or could decide that it was okay to do so. The entire idea of the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule is to allow a fair system of justice to prevail.

There have been several cases where the Exclusionary Rule has allowed guilty persons to go free as a result; however, it is this author’s opinion that if the Law Enforcement had followed the proper procedure in the first place this would not have been a legal issue in the first place. One of those was the case against William Ayers who founded the “Weather Underground” an organization that planned and executed several bombings against government targets in the United States. In this case, Mr. Ayers was brought to trial only to have the evidence thrown out because of wiretaps that were used in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Other cases include rapists and murderers, some may argue that to stop these men and or women it is fine to sidestep the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule however, again it is the author’s opinion that this is not correct. Again if proper warrants had been obtained the result may well have been the indictment of these individuals. There have been far more examples of poor police work leading to bad endings for the “suspects” who were later declared innocent.

For instance Sara Rimer in a New York Times article reported the following, “In 1994 a police SWAT team in Boston broke down an apartment door without warning and tackled an elderly occupant. When the search did not turn up any drugs, the police realized they had raided the wrong home. The elderly man the police had tackled and handcuffed turned out to be a retired minister. The Reverend Accelynne Williams suffered a severe heart attack during the search and died the same afternoon.”

In conclusion, one must assume that without some type of checks and balances the Law Enforcement in the United States would be able to do whatever they wished concerning what they deemed criminal behavior regardless of that person’s right as outlined in the Constitution. As can be seen the Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment are key components to the foundations of the fair and equitable Criminal Justice system in these United States. It is this authors hope that we are able to soon overturn any additional Congressional Acts that further degrade the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary rule. Remember as Samuel Adams stated so well in 1771, “The truth is all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought.”

References:

Department of Justice, (2005).

Fact sheet: USA Patriot act provisions set for reauthorization. From http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_opa_163.htm

Fourth Amendment, Initials. (2009).

U.S. constitution: fourth amendment fourth amendment – search and seizure, findlaw. Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Law. Jrank, (2009). Exclusionary rule – further readings.

Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/6644/Exclusionary-Rule.html

Rimer, S. (1994, March 28).

“Raid on wrong Boston home results in death of a minister. New York Times, (pg. A1), Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/28/us/minister-who-sought-peace-dies-in-a-botched-drug-raid.html?pagewanted=2

Adams, S. (1771) Article in the Boston Gazette dated October 14, 1771

—————————————————————————–

GHTime Code(s): 71519 b55ed

Link to this page