Citizendia
Your Ad Here

Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Fair trial  · Speedy trial  · Jury trial
Counsel  · Presumption of innocence
Exclusionary rule (U.S.)
Self-incrimination  · Double jeopardy (Not E&W)
Verdict
Acquittal  · Conviction
Not proven (Scot.)  · Directed verdict
Sentencing
Mandatory  · Suspended  · Custodial
Dangerous offender (Can., E&W)
Capital punishment  · Execution warrant
Cruel and unusual punishment
Post-conviction events
Parole  · Probation
Tariff (UK)  · Life licence (UK)
Miscarriage of justice
Exoneration  · Pardon
Related areas of law
Criminal defenses
Criminal law  · Evidence
Civil procedure
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, that holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law. Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal law. The rights of the accused is a class of rights that apply to a person in the time period between when they are formally accused of a crime and when they are either convicted or acquitted The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the Rule of law. Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings Right to counsel is nowadays generally regarded as a constituent of the Right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel (i The presumption of innocence being innocent until proven guilty is a legal Right that the Accused in Criminal trials has Courts of the United States may refer both to the United States federal courts, which operate under the authority of the United States Constitution Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a Crime for which a person can then be Prosecuted. Double jeopardy (non bis in idem is a Procedural defense (and in many countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico and India Her Majesty's Courts of Justice of England and Wales are the civil and criminal Courts responsible for the administration of Justice in England In Law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a Jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge In Criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict In Law, a conviction is the Verdict that results when a Court of law finds a Defendant guilty of a Crime. Not proven is a Verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts The civil, criminal and heraldic Courts of Scotland are responsible for the administration of Justice. In Law, a directed Verdict is ruling by a Judge presiding over a Jury trial typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence In Law, a sentence forms the final act of a Judge -ruled process and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where Judicial discretion is limited by Law. A suspended sentence is a legal construct Unless a minimum punishment is prescribed by law the Court has the power to suspend the passing of sentence (generally A custodial sentence is a judicial sentence imposing a punishment (and hence the resulting punishment itself consisting of mandatory custody of the convict either in prison In Canada, England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer or indefinite term of imprisonment The court system of Canada is made up of many Courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction Her Majesty's Courts of Justice of England and Wales are the civil and criminal Courts responsible for the administration of Justice in England Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the Killing of a person by judicial process as Punishment. An execution warrant or death warrant is a warrant which authorizes the execution of a judgment of death ( Capital punishment) on an individual Parole may have different meanings depending on the field and judiciary system Probation is the suspension of all or part of a jail sentence the Criminal who is "on probation" has been convicted of a crime but instead of serving jail Under the criminal law of England and Wales, a tariff is the minimum period that a person serving an indefinite Prison sentence must serve before that person becomes The United Kingdom does not have a single unified Judicial system, but separate judicial systems serving England and Wales, Scotland and Northern In the British criminal justice system a life licence specifies the conditions under which a prisoner sentenced to life in jail may be released The United Kingdom does not have a single unified Judicial system, but separate judicial systems serving England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a Crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that Courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a " Civil action " as opposed to The United States of America —commonly referred to as the United States Constitutional Law is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e A defendant or defender ( Δ in Legal shorthand) is any party who is required to answer the Complaint of a Plaintiff A constitutional right is a Right granted by a Government 's Constitution (on the national or sub-national level and cannot be legally denied by that government A court is a forum used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labour administrative and criminal Justice under its This is an example of a prophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. A prophylactic rule is a judicially-crafted rule that overprotects a constitutional right, and gives more protection than such right might abstractly seem to require on its face The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, for prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which provide for protection from unreasonable searches and seizure and compelled self-incrimination. The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the Common law Adversarial system, or the civil law Police are agents or agencies usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force The Fourth Amendment' ( Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment ( Amendment V) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure A Bill of Rights is a list or summary of rights that are considered important and essential by a group of people The Fourth Amendment' ( Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a Crime for which a person can then be Prosecuted. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts Right to counsel is nowadays generally regarded as a constituent of the Right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel (i

The Exclusionary Rule judges the admissibility of evidence based on deontological ethics; that is, it is concerned with how evidence is acquired, rather than what the evidence proves. Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek grc δέον deon, "obligation duty" and grc -λογία -logia) is an Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action For this reason, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used by police/prosecution to gain any incriminating result, all evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action - this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree" - can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for a mistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed). Police are agents or agencies usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the Common law Adversarial system, or the civil law Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence gathered with the aid of information obtained illegally

The Exclusionary Rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors.

Contents

History of the rule

In the 1886 case, Boyd v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States suggested that suspects have a right against self-incrimination, under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. In practice, this was ignored for several decades. [1]

The exclusionary rule was created in 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States. In Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 ( 1914) the United States Supreme Court held unanimously that the illegal seizure of items from a private , where it was found to be a requirement under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The "Weeks Rule", which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. Prohibition of alcohol, often referred to simply as prohibition, also known as Noble Experiment, refers to a Sumptuary law which prohibits Alcohol In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act, which reinforced the Prohibition of alcohol in the United States of America, was popularly named after Andrew Volstead, Chairman of the Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations. [2]

Wolf v. Colorado (1949) ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. The California Supreme Court ruled in People v. The Supreme Court of California is the State supreme court in California. Cahan (1955) that the exclusionary rule applied for cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations. [3]

It was not until Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 ( 1961) was a landmark case in Criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Year 1961 ( MCMLXI) was a Common year starting on Sunday (link will display full calendar of the Gregorian calendar. A US state is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the United States of America that share Sovereignty with the federal government The Fourteenth Amendment ( Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post- Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that a person has a right to receive notice and be heard in an orderly proceeding in order to protect his or her

Applications of the exclusionary rule

The exclusionary rule originally often applies to evidence obtained through unauthorized search and seizure. Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the Truth of an assertion Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and Common law legal systems whereby Police or other authorities and their agents who suspect Under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant, which required probable cause, should be obtained in order to conduct a search. A search warrant is a Court order issued by a Judge or Magistrate that authorizes law enforcement to conduct a Search In United States Criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a Police officer has the right to make an Arrest, conduct A number of exceptions to the warrant requirement have developed, based on other interpretations of what "reasonableness" entails. A strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment says that a search without a warrant is unreasonable. This interpretation is favored by civil liberties advocates. thumb| |Broken Liberty Istanbul Archaeology Museum Civil liberties are freedoms that protect the Individual from the Government. [4]

The rule was expanded in the 1960s to cover other aspects of law enforcement procedure, including "involuntary" confessions,[5] suspect identification obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments,[6] wiretapping evidence in violation of federal law,[7] and other evidence obtained through very unreasonable or "shocking" means in violation of Constitutional rights. The confession of one's Sins is a religious practice important to many faiths e The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts [8][9] In Illinois, People v. Albea (1954) ruled that testimony from witnesses found in course of an unlawful search cannot be admitted into court.

Limitations of the rule

The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing. Civil law, as opposed to Criminal law, refers to that branch of Law dealing with disputes between Individuals and/or Organizations, in which In the Common law, a grand jury is a type of Jury which determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Parole may have different meanings depending on the field and judiciary system

Even in a criminal case, the exclusionary rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. Hudson v Michigan, 547 U S 586 (2006, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a violation of the Fourth Amendment S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006), Justice Scalia wrote for the U. S. Supreme Court:

Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates "substantial social costs," United States v. Leon, 468 U. United States v Leon, 468 US 897 ( 1984) was a Search and seizure case in which the Supreme Court of the United States created S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been "cautious against expanding" it, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U. S. 157, 166 (1986), and "have repeatedly emphasized that the rule's 'costly toll' upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application," Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357, 364-365 (1998) (citation omitted). We have rejected "indiscriminate application" of the rule, Leon, supra, at 908, and have held it to be applicable only "where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served," United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 348 (1974) -- that is, "where its deterrence benefits outweigh its 'substantial social costs,'" Scott, supra, at 363, (quoting Leon, supra, at 907). Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case is an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.

Limitations have included:

The exclusionary rule is not applicable to aliens residing outside of U. S. borders. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, the U. United States v Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 ( 1992) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the fact of respondent's Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters S. Supreme Court decided that property owned by aliens in a foreign country is admissible in court. Certain persons in the U. S. receive limited protections, such as prisoners, probationers, parolees, and persons crossing U. S. borders. Corporations, by virtue of being, also have limited rights under the Fourth Amendment (see corporate personhood). The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to Natural

Hudson v. Michigan

The court in Hudson v. Michigan further held that a search whose only illegality is the failure to announce cannot uncover any evidence that would not have been uncovered if the announcement had been properly made, and therefore the suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy. Hudson v Michigan, 547 U S 586 (2006, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that a violation of the Fourth Amendment The Court followed the general judicial trend, which views the exclusionary rule as a judicial remedy rather than a requirement under the Fourth Amendment. The Court there found that the costs of applying the exclusionary rule to the necessarily gray area of the "knock and announce" requirement were outweighed by the deterrence benefit. Over vigorous dissent the Court wrote, "But ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve absolutely nothing except the prevention of destruction of evidence and the avoidance of life-threatening resistance by occupants of the premises -- dangers which, if there is even "reasonable suspicion" of their existence, suspend the knock-and-announce requirement anyway. Massive deterrence is hardly required. "

Limitations of the exclusionary rule have been criticized for reducing the effectiveness of rule in deterring police misconduct. [13]

Herring v. United States

In 2008, the exclusionary rule will be reviewed again, in Herring v. United States. Herring v United States, No 07-513 ( 2008) is a case scheduled to be decided in the Fall 2008 term by the United States Supreme Court. This case involves an individual, Bennie Herring, who was arrested after a neighboring law enforcement department found what they thought to be a warrant for skipping a court date on which the second department processed an arrest. The warrant was found to have been canceled, but not before further detention was made by the second department for drugs and a firearm (Herring was already a convicted felon and not allowed to have a firearm) found in Herring's possession. The evidence found during this arrest led to a 27-month prison term for Herring.

The issue to be decided is whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer makes an arrest after receiving information from a different law enforcement agency about an outstanding warrant, and the information was incorrect because of a negligent error by that agency[14]. Two justices have already indicated that they would vote to rein in the exclusionary rule, Antonin Scalia and John Roberts. (born March 11, 1936) is an American Jurist and the second most senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Glover Roberts Jr (born January 27 1955) is the seventeenth and current Chief Justice of the United States. Two lower courts have already ruled in favor of the government. [15]

Exceptions to the rule

Even when the Exclusionary Rule does apply, the rule excludes the illegally obtained evidence only on the issue of the defendant's guilt for the particular crime charged. The evidence can still be admitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant's trial testimony; however, this exception applies only if the defendant testifies, and the evidence is relevant to call into question the truthfulness of the defendant's testimony. Witness impeachment, in the Law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. "Testify" redirects here For other uses see Testify (disambiguation and Testimony (disambiguation.

The inevitable discovery doctrine is a direct exception to the exclusionary rule, in that it allows the admission of evidence on the issue of the defendant's guilt where the evidence would otherwise have been excluded. The inevitable discovery is a doctrine in United States law that allows evidence of a Defendant 's guilt that would otherwise be considered inadmissible under the This doctrine was adopted first by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984. It holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. This decision was upheld because given the fact that the exclusionary rule was created specifically to deter police and state misconduct, excluding evidence that would inevitably (hypothetically) have been discovered otherwise would not serve to deter police misconduct. In People v. Stith, the Court stated that this doctrine may not be used to admit primary evidence but only secondary evidence, i. e. evidence found as a result of the primary evidence.

The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is that evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence. In Physics, attenuation (in some context also called extinction) is the gradual loss in intensity of any kind of Flux through a medium The evidence must result from the unlawful conduct. A three-pronged test was created in People v. Martinez to determine whether there was sufficient attenuation of this connection ( i. e. the lack of connection between the disputed evidence and the unlawful conduct): (1) the time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing confession or consensual search; (2) the presence of intervening factors or event; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.

The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted in court if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate, or independent, source that is completely unrelated to the illegality at hand. This rule was formally accepted in People v. Arnau.

The good-faith exception may allow some evidence gathered in violation of the Constitution if the violation results in only a minor or technical error. In United States constitutional law, the good-faith exemption (also good-faith doctrine) is a Legal doctrine providing an exemption to the Exclusionary If a magistrate is erroneous in granting a police officer a warrant, and the officer acts on the warrant in good faith, then the evidence resulting in the execution of the warrant is not suppressible. Most often the term warrant refers to a specific type of Authorization; a Writ issued by a competent officer usually a Judge or Magistrate However, there are a number of situations in which the good faith exception will not apply:

  1. No reasonable judicial officer would have relied on the affidavit underlying the warrant. An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the declarant (who is called the affiant or deponent) and witnessed (as to the veracity of the
  2. The warrant is defective on its face for failing to state the place to be searched or things to be seized.
  3. The warrant was obtained based on an affidavit which, intentionally or recklessly, includes material falsehoods.
  4. The magistrate has "wholly abandoned his judicial role. "

Criticism

In the 1970s, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm Wilkey, and others called for the exclusionary rule to be abolished. Dallin Harris Oaks (born August 12, 1932) is an American attorney jurist and religious leader [16] By the 1980s, the exclusionary rule remained controversial and was strongly opposed by President Ronald Reagan. But, some opponents began seeking to have the rule modified, rather than abolished altogether. The case, Illinois v. Gates, before the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. The Supreme Court also considered allowing exceptions for errors made by police in good faith. The Reagan administration also asked Congress to ease the rule. The United States Congress is the bicameral Legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses [17]

See also

References

  1. ^ Oaks, Dallin H. Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action (1970). "Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure". University of Chicago Law Review 37 (3): pp. 665-757.  
  2. ^ Allen, Francis A. (1961). "Exclusionary Rule in the American Law of Search and Seizure, The Exclusionary Rule Regarding Illegally Seized Evidence". Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 52 (3): pp. 246-254.  
  3. ^ Allen, Francis A. (1961). "Exclusionary Rule in the American Law of Search and Seizure, The Exclusionary Rule Regarding Illegally Seized Evidence". Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 52 (3): pp. 246-254.  
  4. ^ Davies, Thomas Y. (1999). "Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment". Michigan Law Review 98: 547.  
  5. ^ Miranda v. Arizona 384 U. Miranda v Arizona (consolidated with Westover v United States, Vignera v S. 436 (1966)
  6. ^ United States v. Wade 388 U. S. 218 (1967) - lineups; Gilbert v. California 388 U. Gilbert v California, 388 US 263 ( 1967) was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15-16 S. 263 (1967) - identifications
  7. ^ Lee v. Florida 392 U. S. 378 (1968)
  8. ^ Rochin v. California 342 U. Rochin v California, 342 US 165 ( 1953) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that " Shocks S. 165 (1952) - "shocking" methods
  9. ^ Oaks, Dallin H. (1970). "Studying the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure". University of Chicago Law Review 37 (3): pp. 665-757.  
  10. ^ United States v. Jeffers and Jones v. United States clarify the standing requirements. See Jones v United States (1890, See Jones v United States (1960,.
  11. ^ Walder v. United States
  12. ^ Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
  13. ^ Grant, Circumventing the Fourth Amendment, 14 So. Calif. L. Rev. 359 1941; Comment, Judicial Control of Illegal Search and Seizure, 58 Yale L. J. 144 (1948)
  14. ^ United States Department of Justice No. 07-513: Herring v. United States. Retrieved on 2008-08-29. 2008 ( MMVIII) is the current year in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, a Leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Events 708 - Copper coins are minted in Japan for the first time (Traditional Japanese date: August 10, 708)
  15. ^ David G. Savage. "Supreme Court to review 'exclusionary rule' on evidence", Los Angeles Times, 2008-02-20. 2008 ( MMVIII) is the current year in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, a Leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Events 1472 - Orkney and Shetland are left by Norway to Scotland, due to a Dowry payment Retrieved on 2008-02-29. 2008 ( MMVIII) is the current year in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, a Leap year that started on Tuesday of the Common Leap years Although the modern calendar counts a year as 365 days a complete revolution around the sun takes approximately 365 days and 6 hours  
  16. ^ Wilkey, Malcolm R. (1978). "Judicature" 62 (5): pp. 214-232.  
  17. ^ Taylor, Jr. , Stuart. "Exclusionary-Rule Fight Moves to Supreme Court", The New York Times, January 26, 1983.  
© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
 Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic