Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
-
Upload
bodii-boftain -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
1/11
The Exclusionaryhe ExclusionaryRuleule
By Tiffany HollenbackBy Tiffany Hollenback
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
2/11
DefinitionDefinition
This rule states that any evidenceThis rule states that any evidence
obtained by the government inobtained by the government in
violation of the Fourth Amendmentviolation of the Fourth Amendment
which guarantee againstwhich guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure inunreasonable search and seizure in
not admissible in a criminalnot admissible in a criminal
prosecution to prove guilt.prosecution to prove guilt.
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
3/11
For ExampleFor Example
IfIfXX is charged of an offense and hasis charged of an offense and has
appointed a lawyer to representappointed a lawyer to represent XX. If the. If the
police were to interrogatepolice were to interrogate XX withoutwithout XsXslawyer present. It will then violatelawyer present. It will then violate XsXs
Sixth Amendment (the right of counsel).Sixth Amendment (the right of counsel).
Then the evidence that is obtained isThen the evidence that is obtained isinadmissible in a court of law.inadmissible in a court of law.
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
4/11
Historical Development
The rule is of U.S. origin The rule is said to be the
creation of the Supreme Court
of the United States
The first case involving searchand seizure was decided by theCourt in 1886
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
5/11
ContinuedContinued
1914 to 1960 the federal courts1914 to 1960 the federal courts
admitted evidence of a federal crimeadmitted evidence of a federal crime
if the evidence had been illegallyif the evidence had been illegally
obtained by the state officers as longobtained by the state officers as long
as none of the evidence came fromas none of the evidence came from
the federal officials.the federal officials.
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
6/11
Continuedontinued This rule is used to enforce the prohibition ofThis rule is used to enforce the prohibition of
unreasonable search and seizureunreasonable search and seizure
It can be seen as the primary protection ofIt can be seen as the primary protection ofpersonal privacypersonal privacy
Also is security against police arbitrariness andAlso is security against police arbitrariness andpolice brutalitypolice brutality
The assumption is that if the evidence obtainedThe assumption is that if the evidence obtainedillegally is not admitted in court, policeillegally is not admitted in court, policemisconduct in search and seizure case willmisconduct in search and seizure case willcease or be minimizedcease or be minimized
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
7/11
The purpose of the rulehe purpose of the rule In many cases the primary purpose of theIn many cases the primary purpose of the
rule is to deter police misconduct.rule is to deter police misconduct.
The rule aplies to both federal and stateThe rule aplies to both federal and statecases.cases.
Basis for judges decision to excludeBasis for judges decision to exclude
incriminating evidence from a trial whereincriminating evidence from a trial wherea persons accused of a crimea persons accused of a crime
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
8/11
Continuedontinued These were limited to cases involvingThese were limited to cases involving
coercion, violence, or brutalitycoercion, violence, or brutality
The right of Due Process comes underThe right of Due Process comes underthe Fifth or Fourth Amendmentthe Fifth or Fourth Amendment
Courts later overruled theCourts later overruled the WolfWolf decisiondecision
and held the fourth Amendment whichand held the fourth Amendment whichrequired state courts to excluderequired state courts to exclude
unlawfully obtained evidencunlawfully obtained evidenc
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
9/11
In State Courtsn State Courts 1949 the Court held that state courts were not1949 the Court held that state courts were not
required to exclude illegally obtained evidencerequired to exclude illegally obtained evidence
Therefore the exclusionary rule didnt applyTherefore the exclusionary rule didnt apply(Wolf v. Colorado U.S. 25 [ 1949 ](Wolf v. Colorado U.S. 25 [ 1949 ]
1952, The Court modified that position still not1952, The Court modified that position still not
applying the exclusionary rule but howeverapplying the exclusionary rule but however
some searches were so shocking that thesome searches were so shocking that therequired exclusion of evidence seized underrequired exclusion of evidence seized under
the Due Process Clausethe Due Process Clause
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
10/11
Invoking the Rulenvoking the Rule The exclusionary rule may be invoked byThe exclusionary rule may be invoked by
the defendant at any time during thethe defendant at any time during the
criminal processcriminal process
The defendant may invoke the rule evenThe defendant may invoke the rule even
if the defendant is serving a sentenceif the defendant is serving a sentenceafter being convictedafter being convicted
-
8/4/2019 Criminal Justic Ch4 &5
11/11
RememberRemember
Evidence obtained in violations of theEvidence obtained in violations of theconstitutional rights of Due Process isconstitutional rights of Due Process is
clearly inadmissible at present because itclearly inadmissible at present because it
violates a constitutional rightviolates a constitutional right