Legal Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule nce of the rights protected and guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, many questions and concerns existed regarding police and court procedures and practices.
In International Lawthe right of ships of war, as regulated by treaties, to examine a merchant vessel during war in order to determine whether the ship or its cargo is liable to seizure.
Overview Search and seizure is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Searches and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. The police have the power to search and seize, but individuals are protected against Arbitraryunreasonable police intrusions.
Freedom from unrestricted search warrants was critical to American colonists.
Customs officials could enter the homes of colonists at will to search for violations of customs and trade laws, and suspicionless searches were carried out against outspoken political activists. Searches in the colonies came to represent governmental oppression.
To guard against arbitrary police intrusions, the newly formed United States in ratified Legal evolution of the exclusionary rule essay U. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon Probable Causesupported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
State Action Law enforcement officers are entrusted with the power to conduct investigations, make arrests, perform searches and seizures of persons and their belongings, and occasionally use lethal force in the line of duty.
But this power must be exercised within the boundaries of the law, and when police officers exceed those boundaries they jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence collected for prosecution.
By and large, the Fourth Amendment and the case law interpreting it establish these boundaries. The safeguards enumerated by the Fourth Amendment only apply against State Actionnamely action taken by a governmental official or at the direction of a governmental official.
Thus, actions taken by state or federal law enforcement officials or private persons working with law enforcement officials will be subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. Bugging, Wiretappingand other related snooping activity performed by purely private citizens, such as private investigators, do not receive Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Individuals receive no Fourth Amendment protection unless they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched or the property that was seized.
Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
United States, U. In general the Court has said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own bodies, Personal Propertyhomes, and business offices. Individuals also enjoy a qualified expectation of privacy in their automobiles.
Individuals ordinarily possess no reasonable expectation of privacy in things like bank records, vehicle location and vehicle paint, garbage left at roadside for collection, handwriting, the smell of luggage, land visible from a public place, and other places and things visible in plain or open view.
Houseguests typically do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the homes they are visiting, especially when they do not stay overnight and their sole purpose for being inside the house is to participate in criminal activity such as a drug transaction.
Similarly, a defendant showing only that he was a passenger in a searched car has not shown an expectation of privacy in the car or its contents.
Both the houseguest and the motor vehicle passenger must assert a property or possessory interest in the home or motor vehicle before a court will recognize any Fourth Amendment privacy interests such that would prevent a police officer from searching those places without first obtaining a warrant.
Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.
In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand.
This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside.
To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion.
Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer. Arrest and Miranda Under the Fourth Amendment, a seizure refers to the collection of evidence by law enforcement officials and to the arrest of persons.
An arrest occurs when a police officer takes a person against his or her will for questioning or criminal prosecution. The general rule is that to make an arrest, the police must obtain an arrest warrant. However, if an officer has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and there is no time to obtain a warrant, the officer may make a warrantless arrest.
An invalid arrest is not generally a defense to prosecution. However, if an arrest is unsupported by probable cause, evidence obtained pursuant to the invalid arrest may be excluded from trial. When an arrest is made, the arresting officer must read the Miranda warnings to the arrestee. The Miranda warnings apprise an arrestee of the right to obtain counsel and the right to remain silent.
If these warnings are not read to an arrestee as soon as he or she is taken into custody, any statements the arrestee makes after the arrest may be excluded from trial.Legal Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect citizens’ civil rights from infringement by the government and law enforcement agencies.
The Constitution guarantees that the civil liberties of the people of this country shall be respected and upheld. Legal Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule Essay - The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect citizens' civil rights from infringement by the government and law enforcement agencies.
The Constitution guarantees that the civil liberties of the people of this country shall be respected and upheld. The exclusionary rule in historical perspective: the struggle to make the Fourth Amendment more than 'an empty blessing' by Yale Kamisar n adopted the 65 the years exclusionary since the rule, Supreme few criticsCourt.
An analysis of the Exclusionary rule in the US The exclusionary rule is a legal rule that is used in the United States, stating that the evidence that was illegally seized by the police, cannot be admitted during criminal trials. Exclusionary Rule Legal Brief This Essay Exclusionary Rule Legal Brief and other 64,+ term papers, college essay examples and free essays are available now on alphabetnyc.com Autor: review • February 25, • Essay • .
The Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule A Historical Analysis And How It Stand Today April Herald Criminal Justice Abstract From historical analysis, this work highlights key cases that have influenced the evolution of the Exclusionary rule and where it stands today.
The purpose of this paper is to inform people of the importance of our.