Paper Example on Exclusionary Rule

Describe the Exclusionary Rule and what it is meant to protect the citizens of this country from.

The exclusionary rule is a type of law intended to discourage the violation of civil rights by police officers and other government officials (Ferguson, 2019). If the government obtain unlawful searches or seizures through unconstitutional conduct, the courts will suppress any evidence gathered during the search. Suppression means that the evidence at issue will not be presented for the defendant's eventual trial. The exclusion rule applies to the validation of forced evidence, which is the direct product of a violation of the Constitution. It also applied in instances where such infringement leads less directly to proof of guilt.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

What are the benefits of the Exclusionary Rule? Explain.

The Exclusion Rule is not guaranteed to rights such as the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Constitution of the United States. The exclusion rule is a valuable mechanism for the citizens of the United States to guarantee a fair process of justice. The practice is carried out by ensuring that the standard of proof is proved by the prosecution using lawfully obtained facts (Slobogin, 2016). First, by providing that all searches and seizures are justified and that people are safe in their houses and property, and ensuring that law enforcement officers are within their lawful right to search and seize items. The exclusionary rule guarantees that all evidence is lawfully collected and, if it is not, removes the evidence from the trial. Consequently, it ensures that citizens are always aware of civil rights to shield themselves from self-incrimination.

The exclusion rule also provides that other pieces of evidence cannot be excluded. First, if the evidence found was from a source independent of illegal activity, second, if the evidence found was predictable, and finally, if there is a relation between illegal activity and the finding of evidence (Oliver, 2017).

Identify at least two methods of demonstrative evidence that would explain the concept of best evidence. You may use scenarios to describe the theory of best evidence.

Demonstrative evidence refers to the use of physical objects, diagrams, pictures, sound recordings, simulation models, and other tools that serve to make the judge and jury aware of the facts about a case (Jones, & Kovera, 2015).

The best evidence rule applies if the material of a document is to be accepted as evidence, but the original text is not available. In this case, a reasonable explanation must be given to the party for their absence. When the document itself is not available, and the court considers the statement given appropriate, then additional evidence may be used by the parties to show and provide proof to support the contents of the document. The evidence rule applies only if a party seeks to prove the material in the record requested is acknowledged.

Explain to the newly appointed investigators the absolute adherence to avoiding any evidentiary issue that would result in a Fruit of the Poisonous Tree violation.

A fair review of evidence gathered should be carried out based on a limited amount of facts that must be revealed to validate the evidence obtained. This review should be carried out following the legislative provisions or any other court standards. That dimension is brought up by the fruit of a poisonous tree, which orders that more and more curiosity must be created and that the logical analysis must be surpassed (Viebig, 2016). The investigator must ensure that there is no legal jargon and that there is no prejudice in the language used.

Explain the ramifications and results of such a violation. Use at least two scenarios to demonstrate this issue.

If an investigation officer unlawfully searches a home for evidence of a crime, criminal law not only suppresses this evidence but also proof from the investigation, which was not illegally found itself. For investigators, actions such as illegal monitoring of individuals in an attempt to gather evidence also lead to violations of one's constitutional rights. Take an unlawful wiretap, for example. Suppose an investigator begins to listen in and record the statements of suspected assault and battery offender without first getting a warrant. The offender says on the phone that he used a baseball bat to injure the victim and put it in his van. The police go to his property check to out his van and find the baseball bat. The poisonous tree in this scenario is the illegal recordings through a wiretap, which will be invalid evidence in court. And the discovered weapon will be the fruit of the poisonous tree. The weapon will not be displayed as evidence before the court

Explain to the new investigators the idea behind the court's displeasure with issues like the Christian Burial Speech.

Christian Burial's speech was based on the case of Brewer V. Williams (Johnson, 1983). In the case, Williams had murdered a 10-year-old girl in Des Moines, Iowa. Williams was charged for the crime he committed before a court in Devonport where he was located when he followed his attorney's advice of turning himself in through a phone call. The court decided that Williams was to be taken back to Des Moines to provide a statement to the investigators in the presence of his attorney.

During the trip, Williams was under strict conditions not to give any information to the investigators throughout the journey. Consequently, the officers were also not allowed to interrogate Williams during the trip. However, during the trip, one of the officers suggested to Williams that it would be best for him to retrieve the girl's body sooner, and Williams obliged. Williams directed the officers to the girl's body, and he was charged with murder in Des Moines.

Williams then went ahead and filed a habeas petition before the Federal District Court. The court's verdict highlighted that Williams' right to counsel was violated during the journey. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the ruling on rights violations. The US Supreme Court, therefore, ordered a review of Williams's case.

What might it mean in the long run to a severe case just as it did with Brewer v. Williams?

In the case of Brewer v. Williams, it is illustrated that in any event, law enforcement officers are bound by the rule of law. If, in any way, they contradict the code in the name of enforcing it, the result would be a contempt of the law. In the long run, violating one's rights leads to anarchy, whereby desired justice would not be administered.

Explain the types of behavior that may result in the application of the Shocking the Conscience of the Court test. Provide at least one scenario as demonstrative instruction.

Behaviors that goes beyond the threshold of what is considered criminal, or harsh without valid justification would shock the conscience of the court (Butler, 2016). For example, in the case of Rochin v. California, law enforcement officers forcefully took Mr. Rochin to the hospital to get him to vomit drugs he swallowed before his arrest (Rochin v. California). For the doctor to administer an emetic medication, the doctor forced a tube into Rochin's stomach without his consent. The doctor's actions resulted in Rochin vomiting out the pills, which were later used as evidence to convict him. When Rochin appealed his case at the California supreme court, one judge recorded that the case revealed a shocking violation of constitutional rights. The case ended up in the US supreme court when it was reversed because the officer's application of the law "shocks the conscience" and it offended a sense of justice.

Provide instruction that coercion is a clear violation of the Constitution. What areas are violated, and what types of behavior are considered coercion?

Coerced, forced, and false confessions draw the jury away from the truth and, in the most extreme situations, lead to unjust convictions and severe injustice (Trujillo, 2016). In such cases, the convicted persons appear to be the victim of the Fifth Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause. Coercion also contravenes the Sixth Amendment's constitutional right to counsel. Unlawful methods used to retrieve information from a suspect can be considered as a process of coercion. These methods will include a situation where a suspected can be physically harmed or threatened to be harmed if they don't provide certain information. In other instances, suspects are taken through a lengthy interrogation session being deprived of sleep, food, and generally wearing them down. The interrogators may also exploit the suspect's weakness and mental state to get the information they need.

What are the liabilities of the Exclusionary Rule?

Liabilities include the fact that many criminals have been released because of the technicalities or never proceeded to trial. Errors that can make evidence inadmissible in court always happen. These errors overlook the point that the police were investigating proof for a probable cause even though no warrant is issued.

Explain. What types of errors can occur? Explain What ramifications can result from these errors? Explain.

Investigators and law enforcement officers, just like everybody, can make mistakes, including and concerning the scope and content of the legislation. However, the extent and consequences of police errors in the law differ. When police apprehend or detain a person based on a misunderstanding of the law, they not only violate their sworn duty to uphold the law but unlawfully deprive individuals of their legal rights. Historically, as a result, policing errors of the law have been condemned by the courts, triggering the first civil action and subsequent application of the exclusion rule, based on the finding that the errors were unduly for the Fourth Amendment.

References

Butler, J. M. (2016). Shocking the Eighth Amendment's Conscience: Applying a Substantive Due Process Test to the Evolving Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 43(4), 861-884. Retrieved from: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol43/iss4/4

Ferguson, A. G. (2019). The exclusionary rule in the age of blue data. Vand. L. Rev., 72, 561. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3142260

Johnson, P. E. (1983). The Return of the Christian Burial Speech Case. Emory LJ, 32, 349. Retrieved from: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/emlj32&div=19&id=&page=

Jones, A. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2015). A demonstrative helps opposing expert testimony sensitize jurors to the validity of scientific evidence. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 15(5), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225

Oliver, W. M. (2017). Prohibition's Anachronistic Exclusionary Rule. DePaul L. Rev., 67, 473. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3174642

Rochin v. California. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 26, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/342us165

Slobogin, C. (2016). A comparative perspective on the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases. In Comparative Criminal Procedure. Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781007198

Trujillo, I. (2016). Coercion and non-state law. Societa e diritti, 1(1), 11-30. Retrieved from: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/SED/article/download/7830/7502

Viebig, P. (2016). The Relation Between the Violation and the Evidence. In Illicitly Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court (pp. 189-238). TMC Asser Press, The Hague. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6265-093-0_6