100 word response 1 reference Due 1/6/2024
Alexis
· Should the Exclusionary Rule continue to be a Constitutional mandate of the 4th Amendment? What if the result is dismissal of charges against a clearly guilty defendant?
1. The Exclusionary rule was made to prevent law enforcement officers from overstepping individuals’ rights in their own homes without probable cause. As mentioned, the rule doesn’t advise on how it is to be enforced for after-the-fact Fourth Amendment violations. It should be of note that this rule is derived from Mapp v. Ohio in reference to an improper search of Mapp’s home for something not related to what she was later charged with(Administrative Office of the US Courts, 1961). The reason that the exclusionary rule was made a constitutional mandate of the 4th amendment is due to the government’s commitment to citizens’ rights and preventing illegal searches or seizures. However, with a remedy not included for exclusionary rules, it was determined that the illegally found evidence would be excluded from any trial the defendant may face. (Israel et al., 2023). This determination was made long ago and seems to not reflect todays standards. Today, there are many exclusions such as the “reasonable mistake” exception or “inevitable discovery” exception (Israel et al., 2023). Meaning that the law enforcement officer just has to prove that the illegally obtained evidence was an honest mistake by assuming that the magistrate signing the warrant determines that it complies with Fourth Amendment requirements or just has to prove that the evidence would be found in a legal search later on. This, in my opinion effectively nulls the exclusionary rule for most cases, and therefore its mandate is ineffective because of the many exclusions that can be applied. If an exclusionary ruling effectively renders the dismissal of charges against a guilty individual, it is my opinion that other evidence could have been gathered showing that person’s guilt without evidence found as a result of the illegal search and Seizure therefore nulling the exclusionary rule.
· If the Exclusionary Rule is abolished by the Supreme Court, how should 4th Amendment violations be resolved? If we are no longer going to exclude reliable evidence of the defendant’s guilt that was obtained in violation of 4th Amendment protections, how do we hold law enforcement accountable?
1. There are a few different ways that 4th amendment violations could be resolved in the absence of the exclusionary rule. Currently, civil damages actions against individual officers, suits against municipalities, and suits seeking injunctive or declaratory relief are ways to remedy Fourth Amendment violations according to Kerr’s analysis of Camreta v Greene and Davis V. United States (Kerr, 2011). I think it is still important for there to be ways to suppress certain evidence under its relevancy to the case. However, motions to suppress evidence simply due to a 4th amendment violation seem to have many ways around them, rather the motions to suppress evidence should be done if the evidence has very minimal importance to the case. It is my opinion that those who are in law enforcement tend to respect individuals’ rights, however, there are still consequences in place for those who violate individuals’ rights both in the agency or department they work for and in the legal system through civil and possibly criminal cases.