The Exclusionary Rule Essay Research Paper The

The Exclusionary Rule Essay, Research Paper

The Exclusionary Rule

The Effect of the Fourth Amendment is to put the

courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the

exercise of their own power and authority, under

limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power

and authority, and to forever secure the people, their

persons, houses, papers and effects against all

unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law

(Ronald 605). The Constitution does not tolerate

warrantless, therefore illegal, police searches and

seizures–unless there is probable cause. The rights which

the Fourth Amendment states were strengthened when the

Supreme Court preceded the Exclusionary Rule, and

therefore, the rights of the people were strengthened as

well.

The Exclusionary Rule, first preceded in 1914, is

the understanding, based on Supreme Court precedent, that

incriminating information must be seized according to

constitutional specifications of due process, or it will

not be allowed as evidence (Schmalleger 273). Even the

guilty have a right to claim innocence. Hence, this right

would be worthless if incriminating evidence was allowed to

be obtained, distributed, and used illegally. Furthermore,

according to the Supreme Court, “If letters and private

documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence

against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of

the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be sure against

such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so for as

those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken

from the Constitution” (Ronald 605). If that “tainted

violence” can be used in court, then the 4th Amendment

offers no real protection to a person accused of a crime

(Magruder 524). The exclusionary rule was intended to put

teeth into the 4th Amendment, and it has (Magruder 524).

The Court further built upon the rules concerning

evidence in 1918, with the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

Doctrine-a legal principle which excludes from introduction

at trial any evidence later developed as a result of an

originally illegal search or seizure (Schmalleger 274).

The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine was enforced after

the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States in

1918. Frederick Silverthorne and his sons were accused of

avoiding payment on federal taxes. They were asked to hand

over their company’s books. The Silverthornes refused,

citing their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-

incrimination (Schmalleger 274). Shortly thereafter, some

federal agents ignored their rights and without warrant,

seized the wanted books anyway. Since this was an

unconstitutional act, the Silverthorne’s lawyer testified

and asked for the books to be returned. The prosecutor

granted his request, and the books were returned.

Expecting all incriminating evidence to have

descended, the Silverthornes where testified in trial.

Much to their surprise, however, the prosecution had made

photocopies of the books they seized, and used them as

evidence against the Silverthornes. Hence, they were

convicted in federal court. They appealed their conviction

and their appeal reached the Supreme Court. The Court

ruled that just as illegally seized evidence cannot be used

in a trial, neither can evidence be used which derives from

an illegal seizure (Schmalleger 274). The conviction of

the Silverthornes was overturned and they were set free.

The illegal evidence reproduced from materials obtained by

an illegal seizure dismissed the whole case because the

prosecutors did not follow the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

Doctrine. “Think of it this way: If you have a box full

of apples, and then you put a rotten one in the bunch, they

will all become rotten at some point. Hence, all the

evidence–fruit–obtained from an illegal mean–poisoned

tree–is not admissible even if the evidence itself is

good” (G mez interview). Even if a case is developed on

years of police research, it may be dejected if that

research and the evidence it revealed was obtained

illegally.

Like the Constitution, however, the exclusionary

rule is not written in stone. It can be amended and

exceptions can be installed to it. In the case of United

Sates v. Leon in 1984, the exclusionary rule was first

modified with “the good faith exception to the exclusionary

rule.” This exception states that law enforcement officers

who conduct a search, or seize evidence, on the basis of

good faith (that is, where they believe they are operating

according to the dictates of the law) and who later

discover that a mistake was made (perhaps in the format of

the application for a search warrant) may still use, in