Why is the Exclusionary Rule Important Before & After Arrest?
The exclusionary rule is one of the most controversial features of U.S. criminal law because it prevents certain evidence from being used against a defendant in a criminal trial. Critics assert that it allows criminals to escape justice, while supporters claim that it deters the police from making aggressive intrusions into the lives of law-abiding citizens.
Other People Are Reading
-
Function
-
The legal basis for the exclusionary rule originates in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well as court decisions. It prevents evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against illegal searches and seizures from being used against a defendant (for example, evidence seized without a warrant from a private residence). It also prevents the admission of evidence seized in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination, such as recordings of a confession gathered in violation of the federal wiretapping statute. Finally, it prevents evidence gathered in violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel from being used as evidence--for example, statements obtained during questioning when the defendant was denied access to an attorney.
History
-
The federal exclusionary rule was first stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States. At that time it was applied only to the U.S. federal government, not to state governments. Nevertheless, several U.S. state legislatures adopted their own versions. In 1961 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule applies to every state government through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The application of the exclusionary rule to particular situations still is being worked out by state and federal court decisions.
-
Elements
-
In order for the exclusionary rule to apply, three elements must be present. First, there must have been an illegal action by either a police officer or an agent of the police. Second, there must have been a seizure of evidence, including voluntary statements by the defendant in some cases. Finally, there must be a connection between the illegal actions of the police and the evidence seized. This connection may be indirect--if a police officer conducts an arbitrary search of a defendant's home for illegal drugs and finds illegal weapons instead, for example, the weapons can be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree."
Deterrence
-
The purpose behind the exclusionary rule is to prevent police from illegally intruding into the lives of citizens. It is thought that police are much more careful about conducting searches and seizures that they otherwise would be because they realize that any evidence gathered will be useless to secure a conviction. The exclusionary rule also is important prior to arrest because it applies to confessions and information extracted from a suspect during custodial questioning. As soon as a suspect in custodial questioning demands to speak to a lawyer, any further answers he provides to police questions cannot be used as evidence until a lawyer is present during questioning. For this reason, police usually stop questioning a suspect after he requests to speak to a lawyer.
Exclusion
-
If, despite the exclusionary rule's deterrence effect, the police conduct an illegal search or perform other illegal conduct that triggers the exclusionary rule, a criminal defendant may seek a suppression hearing to have any evidence illegally seized excluded from the trial. A defendant even may prevent the admission of evidence illegally seized from someone else, if the evidence tends to incriminate the suspect. Although exclusion often works to the advantage of guilty defendants, it can add to its long-term deterrent effect.
-
References
Resources
- Photo Credit scales image by dinostock from Fotolia.com
