Admissible Evidence and Exclusionary Rule - Essay Example

Some illegal betting equipment might be present in the home observed. Mapp refused to allow them permission to enter and search the home as the police officers did not have a search warrant as required in law. The officers forcibly entered the home and searched it, without producing a search warrant to Mapp. As it turned out the officers did not find any of the things that they had come to search for, but instead they found some pornographic materials in the house. As a result, they arrested Mapp and charged her for being in possession of pornographic material, and later sentenced them. At the trial, the prosecution did not produce a search warrant as evidence (Mapp v. Ohio. 1961).

 The Supreme Court upheld that evidence acquired illegally is inadmissible in State courts; since the law could not be properly upheld if illegally obtained evidence was to be admitted in court. This exception seemed like the most effective means of upholding the professionalism of the police officers in the execution of their duties. Even though there was concern on the basis that this rule may result in criminals going scot-free, it was obvious that upholding police professionalism, to some great extent, outweighed this concern. This case served as one of the significant cases that played a great role in re-evaluating the role of the fourth amendment in the judiciary (Mapp v. Ohio. 1961).

Exclusionary Rule

The general rule of the Exclusionary Rule is that any evidence gathered in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in court. This rule states that if police officers contravene a person’s constitutional rights, in their pursuit of evidence, they cannot use that evidence against the person. The exclusionary rule serves as a very important remedy against improper searches by police officers. It can be of great use in the general protection of the citizens’ rights. This rule is a creation of the court so as to uphold the Constitutional amendments that were made. Courts are keen on applying the rule to exclude illegally obtained evidence where the costs of exclusion are greater than its deterrent or remedial benefits (Tomkovicz, 2009).

The Supreme Court sets up the provisions of the Bill of Rights against the state on many occasions. The question that arises is whether the court will continue supporting the same principles imposed on the federal states against the State. Most of the court decisions are in support of this idea of using the same standards for both types of states (Tomkovicz, 2009). However, there are several exceptions to the general rule. These exceptions include non-trial criminal proceedings, for example, bail proceedings, and a proceeding in revoking parole as an exception. It holds that constitutionally, there may be an admission of evidence obtained illegally in such non-trial criminal proceedings. Another exception is the arraignment of the defendant. This exception enables the prosecutor to produce evidence illegally obtained from the defendant if only the purpose is to impeach the defendant. However, such evidence may be inadmissible for the purpose of impeaching other witnesses of the defense, as it was held in James v Illinois, 493 U.S 307 (1990).

            “Good faith” is also an exception to the general rule. It states that evidence obtained illegally by a police officer in the belief that either the search does not require a search warrant or rely on an invalid warrant believing that it is valid, the police may admit it in court as held in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).  It is a requirement that a reasonably trained officer should have believed the warrant in question to be true.  However, this exception is not popular in many states. This exception does not apply to improperly executed warrants (Tomkovicz, 2009). There is an extension of the exception to cover a  non-warranty search on reliance on an error made by a court employee, as opposed to one made by a police officer, as held in Arizona v Evans, 514 U.S 1 (1995).

The fruit of the poisonous tree is an important corollary to the exclusionary rule. This rule holds that any other evidence obtained afterward, as an indirect result of the illegal search, will also be admissible. This corollary doctrine tends to expand the scope of the exclusionary rule. This rule prevents the use of illegal evidence to impose incarceration. It prevents the prosecutor from presenting new evidence to the court.