Exclusionary Rules

Exclusionary Rules

Exclusionary Rule

In line with Brian S. MacNamara

about Exclusionary Rules in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The exclusionary rule, created by the United States Court of last resort of the Country, states that any evidence seized by government agents (usually police) in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful search and seizure is not admissible in an ensuing criminal trial. Although the exclusionary rule is not part of the United States Constitution, this issue of whether evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution could be used in court against a defendant was raised before the Court of last resort of the Country as early as 1886 ( Boyd v. United States of America ), but remained open to debate until 1914. Finally, in 1914, in order to enforce the mandate of the Fourth Amendment, the Court of last resort of the Country determined that prohibiting the introduction of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, in a criminal trial, was the only way to deter law enforcement officials from future unconstitutional conduct.

Exclusionary Rules

In line with William C. Heffernan

about Exclusionary Rules in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

In American (United States) courts, exclusionary rules mandate, on motion by an aggrieved criminal defendant, suppression of evidence of the defendant's guilt when that evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's legal rights. The legal rights at stake are often constitutional; most commonly, they involve the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. However, the rights may be statutory as well, as when evidence is obtained in violation of federal statutes governing electronic surveillance by government officials. The origins of the exclusionary rules are to be found in constitutional decisions rendered by the United States Court of last resort of the Country in the first half of the 20th century. The most important of these is Weeks v. United States of America (1914), where the Court held that evidence obtained in violation of Weeks's Fourth Amendment rights should have been suppressed at his criminal trial.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.