Abstract
The paper unveils critical insights of possible exemptions to the Exclusionary Rule while focusing on acceptable sources of evidence, search methods, and techniques that can be used to acquire information. Simultaneously, it provides important details about the concepts such as “Plain View” doctrine, dying declaration, appropriateness of lying, and many others. A combination of these matters will ease the decision-making process and speed the investigation.
Introduction
Nowadays, the legal system develops a sufficient framework of rules and regulations that control the order in society. The Exclusionary Rule is one of them, and the primary goal of this paper is to review various cases that can be defined as exemptions to this concept. In this instance, such matters as human error and lying to a suspect will be discovered. In the end, the conclusions are drawn to summarize the findings.
The Concept of Admissibility of Plain Sight Evidence
In the first place, the concept of admissibility is applicable when there is evidence of wrongful activity, and the police officer is present at the place where he has a legal right to be. At the same time, this type of evidence is admissible, if it is collected with the help of observations from a public place such as a supermarket (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). In this instance, no search activities are allowed. A combination of these matters complies with the principles of the “Plain View” doctrine, and in this case, collected evidence can be seized and used during trials (Gardner & Anderson, 2015, p. 394). Consequently, the legal requirements referring to the plain sight seizure can be formulated as providing a clear rationale for the occurrence of crime, obtaining evidence without search, ensuring plain sight nature of the evidence, and underlying the importance of the process for investigation.
Evidence Found without the Questionable Search
It remains apparent that the Exclusionary Rule aims at protecting the personal rights of the individuals. Nonetheless, one of the exemptions is the fact that any evidence found by police officers is admissible even if it was obtained illegally (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). This procedure can be referred to as inevitable discovery only if this type of evidence was predicted or could have been found during the process of investigation. In this instance, one of the examples of the application of this concept is Nix vs. Williams’s case, and the police officers used Williams’ statements and found the body of the missing girl while providing this evidence to the court (Gardner & Anderson, 2015). Apart from clear violations of rights and the Exclusionary Rule and illegal actions of the officers, this evidence was admissible since the body of the girl could have been discovered during the investigation.
Investigators and Human Error
Apart from having a strict set of rules that have to be followed, the Court considers the human nature of the investigators and states that errors in paperwork may take place. In this instance, “Good Faith Exemption” clearly describes the situations when the evidence can still be discovered admissible (Cornell University Law School, 2017, para. 3). For example, cases such as using invalid search warrant and statute and making mistakes with data entry in warrant databases are some of them. Meanwhile, other cases such as using binding appellate precedent are prohibited (Cornell University Law School, 2017, para. 3).
Two Concepts and Lying to a Suspect
Apart from the exemptions mentioned above, there are other matters to consider such as dying declaration, and this concept implies that the last words of a person related to the crime may be considered as admissible evidence to the Court (Monir, 2012). The rationale for making this matter an exemption is the fact that an individual is no longer available, but he/she can still bring valuable evidence to a trial. Using this method helped reveal various devastating crimes such as homicide (Monir, 2012). Exigent circumstances is another concept, and it implies that search or seizure can be organized without a warrant in the cases when the suspect is dangerous to the society, and there is no time for receiving a warrant (Bailey, 2015). These actions are considered by the Court as relevant since they can provide important details and prevent crime.
Nonetheless, sometimes, it is necessary to lie to a suspect to provoke confession. In this instance, the lies are acceptable, and the acquired evidence can be used in situations such as playing the role of a member of a criminal group (Clarke & Tilley, 2013). Simultaneously, the officers can lie that they have fingerprints and confession of compliances or relatives (Hunter, Roberts, & Young, 2016). The usage of other lies such as claiming a child’s illness is not acceptable since there is no right to use psychological pressure to elicit a confession.
Conclusion
In the end, it could be said that knowing these exemptions to the Exclusionary Rule can speed the investigation process while using all acceptable evidence such plain sight seizure during trials. Consequently, referring to concepts and techniques such as lying to a suspect, exigent circumstance, Good Faith, and inevitable discovery can help unveil the important insights of the crime without violating the law. Nonetheless, apart from the exemptions indicated previously, officers have to respect the rights and freedoms of suspects and witnesses.
References
Bailey, C. (2015). Criminal procedure: Model problems and outstanding answers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, R., & Tilley, N. (2013). Situation prevention of organized crimes. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cornell University Law School. (2017). Exclusionary rule. Web.
Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2015). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Hunter, J., Roberts, P., & Young, S. (2016). The integrity of criminal process: From theory into practice. Oxford, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Monir, M. (2012). Textbook of the Law of Evidence. New Delhi, India: Universal Law Publishing.