The exclusionary rule is a legal rule that requires a court to disregard data seized in the unlawful detention of a defendant or violation of his constitutional rights. It belongs to criminal law and is part of the defense of citizens against court or police misconduct. The exclusionary rule applies to all U.S. citizens and persons within the United States. The rule has been in effect since the passage of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Confronting Police Misconduct
The exclusionary rule protects citizens who may be harmed by police misconduct. In Mapp v. Ohio, the exclusionary rule evolved from acting only on the federal government to acting at the state level (United States Supreme Court, 1961). The application of the exclusionary rule has expanded, and the following can be concluded in the Mapp v. Ohio case context. The exclusionary rule now prevents police officers from obtaining a benefit or evidence when illegally detaining a defendant or seizing his or her property. Despite the illegality of the police intrusion, the Supreme Court found the seizure of materials from Mapp’s home valid, after which she filed suit in the Superior Court of Appeals. On appeal, the court found that the truth was on Mapp’s side because the evidence seized was illegal, and the police had committed unlawful acts (United States Supreme Court, 1961). The exclusionary rule restricts police actions to avoid illegally extracting materials. The rule is a social, moral, and legal constraint because the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights and liberties to everyone in the absence of legally obtained evidence of guilt.
Exemption of Guilty Parties
The legal aspects of applying the exclusionary rule should also be considered. Illegally obtained evidence or evidence can result in a truly guilty person being punished. The same was true of the Mapp case: distribution of pornographic material and participation in Mafia groups is illegal (United States Supreme Court, 1961). Nevertheless, Mapp won her appeal because she proved there was no basis for her arrest and search. The police trespassing was the main argument during the appellate court. The case of Mapp v. Ohio shows that the guilty will continue to be released from custody as long as the exclusionary rule is an essential legal aspect of criminal law. The U.S. Constitution extends to those who sabotage, so the exclusionary rule results in the accused walking free. Unreliable evidence should be removed from the investigation because the public should trust the court and feel protected (Turner & Weigend, 2019). However, this right to defense with a priori guilt is a catalyst for the growth of criminals at large.
The Solution to the Problem
Changes are needed in how the conditions for enforcement of the exclusionary rule are defined. One way to increase the effectiveness of countering police misconduct while holding citizens accountable is to develop a record-keeping record. This may be possible by tracking evidence in real time and notifying investigative participants during the analysis of criminal behavior. The violation of the individual’s right must be eliminated, but the legislative structure must be improved so that there is a process for dealing with potentially guilty but unproven individuals. The USC 1983 Federal Civil Rights Act allows for the management and punishment of unlawful acts by the police by providing transparency to the prosecution of the complainant. In addition, an alternative rule or order should be created that would use an algorithm to determine the admissibility of obtained evidence in the investigative context.
References
Turner, J.I., & Weigend, T. (2019). The purposes and functions of exclusionary rules: A comparative overview. In Do exclusionary rules ensure a fair trial? Gless, S., Richter, T. (eds). Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 74. Springer (pp. 255-282).
United States Supreme Court. (1961). Mapp v. Ohio (1961). No. 236. Web.