Criminal Justic Ch4 &5

8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5

1/11

The Exclusionaryhe ExclusionaryRuleule

By Tiffany HollenbackBy Tiffany Hollenback


2/11

DefinitionDefinition

This rule states that any evidenceThis rule states that any evidence

obtained by the government inobtained by the government in

violation of the Fourth Amendmentviolation of the Fourth Amendment

which guarantee againstwhich guarantee against

unreasonable search and seizure inunreasonable search and seizure in

not admissible in a criminalnot admissible in a criminal

prosecution to prove guilt.prosecution to prove guilt.


3/11

For ExampleFor Example

IfIfXX is charged of an offense and hasis charged of an offense and has

appointed a lawyer to representappointed a lawyer to represent XX. If the. If the

police were to interrogatepolice were to interrogate XX withoutwithout XsXslawyer present. It will then violatelawyer present. It will then violate XsXs

Sixth Amendment (the right of counsel).Sixth Amendment (the right of counsel).

Then the evidence that is obtained isThen the evidence that is obtained isinadmissible in a court of law.inadmissible in a court of law.


4/11

Historical Development

The rule is of U.S. origin The rule is said to be the

creation of the Supreme Court

of the United States

The first case involving searchand seizure was decided by theCourt in 1886


5/11

ContinuedContinued

1914 to 1960 the federal courts1914 to 1960 the federal courts

admitted evidence of a federal crimeadmitted evidence of a federal crime

if the evidence had been illegallyif the evidence had been illegally

obtained by the state officers as longobtained by the state officers as long

as none of the evidence came fromas none of the evidence came from

the federal officials.the federal officials.


6/11

Continuedontinued This rule is used to enforce the prohibition ofThis rule is used to enforce the prohibition of

unreasonable search and seizureunreasonable search and seizure

It can be seen as the primary protection ofIt can be seen as the primary protection ofpersonal privacypersonal privacy

Also is security against police arbitrariness andAlso is security against police arbitrariness andpolice brutalitypolice brutality

The assumption is that if the evidence obtainedThe assumption is that if the evidence obtainedillegally is not admitted in court, policeillegally is not admitted in court, policemisconduct in search and seizure case willmisconduct in search and seizure case willcease or be minimizedcease or be minimized


7/11

The purpose of the rulehe purpose of the rule In many cases the primary purpose of theIn many cases the primary purpose of the

rule is to deter police misconduct.rule is to deter police misconduct.

The rule aplies to both federal and stateThe rule aplies to both federal and statecases.cases.

Basis for judges decision to excludeBasis for judges decision to exclude

incriminating evidence from a trial whereincriminating evidence from a trial wherea persons accused of a crimea persons accused of a crime


8/11

Continuedontinued These were limited to cases involvingThese were limited to cases involving

coercion, violence, or brutalitycoercion, violence, or brutality

The right of Due Process comes underThe right of Due Process comes underthe Fifth or Fourth Amendmentthe Fifth or Fourth Amendment

Courts later overruled theCourts later overruled the WolfWolf decisiondecision

and held the fourth Amendment whichand held the fourth Amendment whichrequired state courts to excluderequired state courts to exclude

unlawfully obtained evidencunlawfully obtained evidenc


9/11

In State Courtsn State Courts 1949 the Court held that state courts were not1949 the Court held that state courts were not

required to exclude illegally obtained evidencerequired to exclude illegally obtained evidence

Therefore the exclusionary rule didnt applyTherefore the exclusionary rule didnt apply(Wolf v. Colorado U.S. 25 [ 1949 ](Wolf v. Colorado U.S. 25 [ 1949 ]

1952, The Court modified that position still not1952, The Court modified that position still not

applying the exclusionary rule but howeverapplying the exclusionary rule but however

some searches were so shocking that thesome searches were so shocking that therequired exclusion of evidence seized underrequired exclusion of evidence seized under

the Due Process Clausethe Due Process Clause


10/11

Invoking the Rulenvoking the Rule The exclusionary rule may be invoked byThe exclusionary rule may be invoked by

the defendant at any time during thethe defendant at any time during the

criminal processcriminal process

The defendant may invoke the rule evenThe defendant may invoke the rule even

if the defendant is serving a sentenceif the defendant is serving a sentenceafter being convictedafter being convicted


11/11

RememberRemember

Evidence obtained in violations of theEvidence obtained in violations of theconstitutional rights of Due Process isconstitutional rights of Due Process is

clearly inadmissible at present because itclearly inadmissible at present because it

violates a constitutional rightviolates a constitutional right

Criminal Justic Ch4 &5

Documents