The fact that American citizens are guaranteed a right for privacy by the Constitution of the country is well known. In this vein, people cannot be searched or seizers by the representatives of law-enforcement agencies without a warrant in accordance to the Exclusionary Rule entrenched in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, any evidences that are collected by means of the use of illegal procedures are considered to be inadmissible. The Exclusionary Rule is aimed for deterring any acts of misconduct by police or the other law-enforcement agencies. The Exclusionary Rule is connected to a number of issues including its inability to protect the rights of the citizens on the reason of exclusions, and its hidden costs for the law-enforcement agencies.
First, speaking about the purpose of the Exclusionary Rule, it should be stated that its main priority is in guarantying American citizens their Constitutional right for privacy. The Exclusionary Rule was developed by judges in order to protect civilians from corrupt practices by law-enforcement agencies. It cannot be found in the Constitution itself; but it is based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Creating the Exclusionary Rule was a judicial construction out of necessity. When a number of complicated situations with police misconduct occurred, a committee formed from judges had a decision that the only way to enforce the Fourth Amendment was developing and adopting corresponding regulation or rule (Fourth Amendment, 2010). In such situation, the Exclusionary Rule was first applied in the case Weeks vs. The United States in 1914. At first, this rule was only valid in federal courts, and after, in 1961, it became legitimate in state courts as well (Zalman, 2008).
Next, the Exclusionary Rule has three exceptions including the Independent Source Doctrine, the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine, and the exception of Good Faith. The Independent Source Doctrine was added in the Supreme Court case of Segura and Colon vs. the United States in 1984. This exception states that if the evidences are gathered in two different ways, and the first of them is illegal whereas the second way is approved by the warrant, then these evidences may be considered legitimate (Grant, 1991). For example, if a police agent initially makes a photocopy of some document without a warrant, but then he or she performs the same procedure with a warrant, the evidence will be valid. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine was added after the case of Nix vs. Williams in 1984. In this case, “the evidence is seized in two different ways, but only one being physical” (Evaluation, 2012). For example, if the police enforced an individual to tell where the drugs were kept that would be considered illegal physical seizure. However, if there was a search for the drugs planned in this territory that would appear to be the hypothetical seizure. In this case, the evidence would be legitimate. The exception of Good Faith was added after the Supreme Court case of the United States vs. Leon in 1984. In this case, if the police officer receives a warrant for searching or seizing providing the wrong information, the evidence will not be valid. However, if it is proved that the error that occurred was unintentional, then the evidences will be legal. The exception of Good Faith has a number of issues as it is rather difficult to determine whether the police officers made an error deliberately or not. According to Evaluation Of The Exclusionary Rule (2012),
If the defence can show that the police officer misled the magistrate to issue the warrant by providing information he knew to be false, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth, this would prove that there was no good faith.
In addition, when the police officer applies for a warrant, he or she should provide particular information concerning the exact details of the objects which are going to be searched. In case the officer does not provide such details (because he knows that he might be rejected if he would add the details), and performs the search of such object, the acts of the officer are not good faith, and the evidences collected are not valid.
Further, with regards to the costs of the Exclusionary Rule, it seems that it is connected to certain dangers as well. Criminals know these regulations, and that offers them a chance to escape judgment. So many cases are known when criminals were freed on the reason of the lack of legitimately collected evidences. Thus, it appears that the police agencies are limited by the Exclusionary Rule, and criminals stay unpunished. On this reason, the Exclusionary Rule has alternative remedies even nowadays, and they continue to be developed. Among these alternative remedies are civil actions against the police, strengthening the inner disciplinary procedures in the police departments, the entrapment defence, improving police training, and expungement of records (Zalman, 2008).
Finally, discussing my personal opinion concerning the Exclusionary Rule, it should be stated that I appreciate the efforts of specialists developing this rule in order to help enforcing the Forth Amendment. Beyond all doubt, this rule provides a basis for protection against illegal actions by the police. The only problem I am concerned about is that this rule is not absolute in guarantying Constitutional right for privacy. There exist a number of exclusions even now, and with the duration of time, these exclusions are becoming more. The exception of Good Faith seems to be the most questionable for me because it is very difficult to determine which of the actions by the police officer may appear in the category of “good faith” actions.
Concluding on all the above-discussed information, it should be stated that the Exclusionary Rule aimed to enforce the Fourth Amendment plays an important role in guarantying American citizens their right for privacy. In case, law-enforcement agencies are going to perform searching or seizing, they must submit the warrant for such actions in accordance to the Exclusionary Rule. However, there exist a number of exclusions from this rule which can be seen as a source for worries for civilians. For example, it is rather difficult to determine whether the actions by the police officer can be qualified as actions of “good faith”. As a result, any person can be subjected to corrupt actions by the representatives of law enforcement agencies.
References
Evaluation Of The Exclusionary Rule. (2012). Web.
Fourth Amendment. Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The exclusionary law. (2010). Web.
Grant, R. W. (1991). The exclusionary rule and the meaning of separation of powers. Harvard Journal Of Law & Public Policy, 14(1), 173.
Zalman, M. (2008). Criminal procedure: Constitution and society, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.