Protecting an individual’s constitutional rights is a matter of utter importance, even in criminal cases. Suppose police undertook an unwarranted stop, search, frisk, seizure, or any type of unlawful misconduct; in this case, several rules can be applied that were explicitly designed to address constitutional infractions. The exclusionary rule is one of the most frequently used rules – it is primarily focused on preventing the denial of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights and rights to privacy (Harr et al., 2014). It also includes the deterrence of police misconduct in obtaining the pieces of evidence during unconstitutional searches and seizures.
However, several exceptions to the exclusionary rule deem improperly obtained evidence admissible under certain conditions. According to Harr et al. (2014), among these exceptions are the inevitable discovery doctrine, existence of a valid independent source, harmless error, and good faith. For me, the inevitable discovery doctrine proved to be the most controversial. It states that there is no reason to hide the improperly obtained evidence from the jury if the government can prove the inevitability of its discovery and admission (Harr et al., 2014). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system provided an example when the police questioned the defendant despite the agreement to hold the questions until the actual court. It resulted in discovering the victim’s body before the searching parties started the operation; the government consequently proved the inevitability of its discovery.
The exception sounds reasonably valid since the defendant already confessed to the police. Nevertheless, the provided case is too specific to justify the exception’s application generally. In my opinion, the premature discovery might foster particular bias toward the defendant in many other situations. Psychologically, even if the evidence is not considered in the court, the fact of its discovery might motivate the plaintiff to change the course of actions to prove the inevitability.
References
Harr, J. S., Hess, K. M., Orthmann, C. H., & Kingsbury, J. (2014). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system. Cengage Learning.