The Exclusionary Rule and Its Role in Protecting Individual Rights

Introduction

The exclusionary rule prohibits using evidence found during an illegal search in court. Thus, the state protects citizens from violations that may arise while investigating a criminal case. The Weeks v. United States (1914) case was the first case in which evidence was obtained from a suspect during an illegal search.

In this regard, the judge ruled during the case’s consideration that evidence obtained without an appropriate search warrant cannot be used in court since the action of federal agents is contrary to the Fourth Amendment. This aspect of the law was intended to protect citizens from having things illegally seized. At the same time, the court concluded that it did not matter what and for what purposes these personal belongings were confiscated (Hardaway, 2020). Until an official permit has been put forward for a search, law enforcement agencies cannot conduct searches since, in this case, the US Constitution protects the defendant. Under such conditions, the exclusionary rule was created, which is necessary to avoid violating the rights of citizens.

The Extension of the Exclusionary Rule

Since its inception, the exception rule has begun to spread rapidly to other states due to its legal validity. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) was the second case in which a judge held that the exclusion rule should be invoked due to state overreach. In this case, the difference was that the court relied on the 14th Amendment to guarantee that citizens of the United States could not be deprived of their rights, including a decent legal process. Since state bodies could violate the rights of citizens during illegal searches, the materials obtained during this action cannot be used in court.

Balance of Individual Rights and Social Needs

Searches and detentions can only be legitimate with the proper court order. According to this rule, judges must be able to find the necessary balance between the rights of the individual and the public good and security. Public policy, in turn, can influence how judges interpret the Fourth Amendment. For example, in extreme cases related to national security or terrorism, the Fourth Amendment can be considered by one court before another.

Specific rules and regulations may be interpreted in a broader sense to possibly expedite the investigation process and ensure the public’s safety. Thus, in Terry v. Ohio (1968), the court ruled that police officers may search people if they have severe suspicions that these persons are involved in illegal activities. This manifests itself as a certain balance provided by the state to better protect the security of citizens.

Interpretation

One case that can be cited as an example regarding the interpretation of the exclusion rule is Mapp v. Ohio (1961). In this case, the interpretation of the rule was relatively straightforward. During the investigation, police officers searched the suspect’s home and found videos with obscene content. However, the court did not consider the evidence, as it was obtained during illegal searches.

The second case differs from the first because the police acted on a warrant that was later canceled. In United States v. Leon, the government appealed the decision when the collected evidence was not included in the investigation. Ultimately, the court ruled that the exception rule should not apply if the police acted in good faith.

An Exception to the Exclusionary Rule

In this example, Patrolman Mark and Officer Kennedy searched the wrong house for which the warrant was issued. However, in this case, the court can apply the exception of good faith because the police did not know that they were in the wrong house and acted in good faith by the warrant issued. In this regard, the acquired evidence can be used in court during the court hearing. Accordingly, Mark will not have problems with the search since his actions were unconscious and conscientious.

The Impact of the Court Decisions on Police Procedure

In some cases, the exception may be perceived as a deterrent that can prevent police officers from breaking the law. Law enforcement will have no reason or motivation to violate some of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment (Hardaway, 2020). This will happen because they will understand that the court can ignore the materials found. After all, they were obtained illegally. Thus, the number of illegal searches can be reduced.

Substantive Interpretation of Individual Freedoms

In this case, the police mistakenly searched the wrong house, which led to the discovery of stolen items. From the substantive interpretation point of view, this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which makes such actions illegal.

Procedural Interpretation of Individual Freedoms

The presented scenario demonstrates that the police officers did not have the right to search but acted in good faith. In this regard, when considering the case, the court may make an exception and consider the evidence found.

Philosophical Underpinnings

The philosophical underpinnings of the court’s actions can be traced to the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. The court then ruled that all citizens have the right to remain silent and to require a lawyer to defend themselves. This decision consolidated the philosophical vision of procedural law in that suspects need to be treated correctly without violating their rights.

Public Policy Influence

In any case, the court’s decisions must be based on what is the best way out, taking into account society’s interests. At the same time, state policy should aim to establish conditions for people in which they can defend their rights and prove their innocence.

Conclusion

It should be noted that the judicial system is an important element in resolving various disputes and violations. However, its organization must be optimized to render due justice and fairness. For this, the US legislative system has the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule.

References

Hardaway, A. B. (2020). The Supreme Court and the Illegitimacy of Lawless Fourth Amendment Policing. BUL Rev., 100, 1193. Web.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

The Law Office of Wyndel G. Darville. (2019). The Exclusionary Rule: A Constitutional Protection for Criminal Defendants. Web.

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).