Why We Need The Exclusionary Rule - Term Paper Example

? The Exclusionary Rule Why We Do Not Need the Exclusionary Rule Introduction The legality and sustainabilityof the evidence employed in court is dependent on various factors. Such evidences are critical in the criminal justice procedures because of the far reaching implications that they have on the well being of the suspect. It is widely agreed that evidence needs to be credible for it to be accepted by the courts. Undoubtedly, the credibility of the evidence is greatly influenced by the modes of its collection. In this regard, it cannot be disputed that police procedures play a significant role in determining the credibility of the given evidence. One of the procedural factors that have raised controversies in the recent past pertains to the role of the exclusionary rule in collection of evidence. This paper provides an in depth analysis of whether we need the exclusionary rule or not. In order to enhance justice by ensuring that evidence employed in courts from the police is credible, we do need the exclusionary rule. Thesis Statement In order to enhance justice by ensuring that evidence employed in courts from the police is credible, we do need the exclusionary rule. Background Information The exclusionary rule is anchored on the provisions of the Fifth Amendment. Basically, it postulates that objects used by the courts as evidence are not credible if they are obtained without a legitimate search warrant or illegally. The constitutional roots of this rule date back to the Gouled vs United States case of 1921. In this case, the Supreme Court maintained that although the government had a legal right to seize contraband; it did not have a right to seize property for the sole purpose of using the same as evidence (Josephson, 2009). Of course, there are certain instances where the evidence obtained from warrantless police searches is acceptable or admissible in the courts of law. Specific instances in this regard include searches conducted in airports, in cases where something is considered as a plain view, when police officers are effecting a lawful arrest or when the officers lack sufficient time to obtain a warrant of arrest. In the later, delays in effecting the arrest can have adverse impacts on the evidence. Issues relating to Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule plays an important role of preventing the police from violating the fundamental rights as well liberties of the members of the public. Warrants are official documents that are issued by judges whenever they deem it necessary to search the premises in a bid to recover or obtain important evidence. Certainly, they are issued when the respective judges believe that evidence can be found within the indicated premises. Besides enabling the police to recover critical evidence, the rule ensures that the holistic well-being of the Americans is safeguarded as it was proved in the case of Langdon v. People, 133 Illinois 382 [1890]. In this case, the court held that it was not in order for “seizure pursuant to search warrant of official state documents was unlawful within appellant’s possession”. Nonetheless, it should be appreciated that the rule is limiting in various scenarios. This is compounded by the increasing complexity of the crimes. Current trends indicate that the frequency and complexity of crimes has increased significantly therefore, requiring the police to have a search warrant in all scenarios can limit effective recovery of critical evidence. Moreover, failing to use reasonable and necessary force in certain instance can inhibit evidence recovery efforts by the police. In light of the preceding limitations, the exclusionary rule is not necessary. According to Lynch (2000), the legality of the exclusionary rule is uncertain. This is because it is neither underscored in the national constitution nor evaluated at length in the Framers’ writings. At this point, it should be appreciated that the above-mentioned documents are the founding documents of the American legal sphere. Generally, the constitution does not say anything regarding measures that need to be undertaken in instances where important constitutional guidelines are contravened. Regardless of this shortcoming, Kamisar (2003) argues that the moral considerations need to be put in consideration when effecting any arrest. This is particularly so because important guiding principles of police producers are grounded on the values and virtues that the society holds in high regard. Upholding them at all times is therefore vitally important. Grittins (2007) also indicates that the provisions of the exclusionary rule are not in line with those of the common law. The common law in this regard states that the criminal defendant does not have any right to object to employment of evidence that has been obtained illegally during the trial process. In this respect, it is worth noting that the English common law provides an important source of law for the American constitution. It should therefore be adhered to for purposes of objectivity and credibility. However, Lynch (2000) argues that the English common law is basically meant to provide guidelines for Britain and not America. Basing critical decisions on the legal positions of other countries therefore, compromises the independence of America. The exclusionary rule from this point of view is considered an important benchmark that is employed by the country to check unbecoming behavior in the criminal justice system. The fact that the rule does not punish the criminals also justifies why it should not be implemented, enforced and upheld given the undue emphasis on the negative humanitarian implications that stem from the process of the search. Seemingly, evidence obtained illegally is not admissible before the court of law regardless of the fact that it ties the suspect directly to the committed crime. This is true in the case of Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 Metc. 329 [1841]. The court held that it was not possible for the evidence illegally obtained to be admissible. Unfortunately, this is not supportive of the efforts that are undertaken by the police as well as other law enforcement agencies in fighting crime. In certain cases, it should be acknowledged that important evidence may not be obtained if the law enforcement officer follows the procedure to the later. Documentary evidence ascertains that such officers, end up arresting and convicting very few criminals (Lynch, 2000). Nonetheless, opponents of this indicate that the framers were well versed with the implications of the rule at the time of its implementations. Since it is politically independent, they were willing to pay the price that is associated with it. For this reason, opponents of this objection insist that officers should at all times respect the independence as well as sanctity of the property of Americans. This according to them can only be attained if the rule is enforced and adhered to by all individuals in the criminal justice system. According to Lynch (2000), another reason that does not justify the need for the rule pertains to its failure to provide any remedy for any affected American citizens. In this respect, it is worth noting that the rule instead provides constitutional protection for individuals that are supposed to be convicted. Those that suffer the most from this point of view are the innocent members of the public that are exposed to the respective search and seizure process. For instance, when the police raid and search a home without a warrant and fail to find the needed evidence, they seldom proceed to bringing the particular case to court. It is actually dropped during the filtration process that is conducted by the executive branch. This is done without putting n consideration the negative implications that the search procedure could have had on the innocent Americans. Opponents of this particular objection however cite that it fails to take in consideration the nature and role of the entire judicial process. The judicial process in this respect is all inclusive encompassing of wide ranging legislative processes. Thus the searches are treated as supplementary measures and not employed for substitution of the exclusionary rule. Certainly, they can be avoided whenever the innocent Americans are affected by the negative implications that stem from them. Seemingly, the costs of effecting the rule are much more than the benefits that accrue from it (Lafave, 2009). This is specifically in light of the economic benefits that are associated with making vital decisions regarding the jury trial process. Also worth mentioning are the costs associated with implementing and enforcing the rule. In the current society, the economic welfare of the country plays an important role in sustaining it. Put differently, economic sustainability is at the core of national development. Current statistics ascertain that most countries, America included are taking practical steps to enhance their economic wellbeing. Critics of this argue that the congress is not mandated in any way to conduct the cost benefit analysis of implementing and enforcing the rule. They assert that the congress is rather required to respect the provisions of the fourth amendment rule. This is should be put in consideration regardless of the fact that the exclusionary rule does not satisfy the cost-benefit criteria. In his research, Lafave (2009) posits that the ultimate impacts of this rule are very difficult to evaluate and determine. This is because the actions that the law enforcement officers failed to take in a bid to refrain from straying beyond the legal boundaries cannot be measured. Statistical evidence shows that the rate at which police officers effectively solved crime dropped from a significant 60% to 40% after the rule had been implemented. Critics of this however argue that it shows the laxity of the police and other law enforcement agencies in addressing crime in an effective and acceptable manner. Josephson (2009) contends that the rule contributes to a state of bureaucracy and confusion. The police officers in this respect have been required to follow innumerable procedural laws. To this effect, some of them do not understand what they are supposed to do and when to restrict their activities and decisions within the legal and moral confines. This is further compounded by the nature of their duties. In this regard, police duties require critical decision making. Most of them are emergencies and various decisions are made in a hasty manner and under pressure. Opponents of this indicate that the training of the law enforcement officers equip them with important skills to deal with such situations effectively. According to the critics, the police have a challenge of exhibiting their professionalism and pressure and emergencies should not be used as a scapegoat for them adhering to the provisions of the fourth amendment. To a great extent, Lynch (2003) shows that the exclusionary rule has compromised the credibility of the evidence that is provided in court by the police. In particular, the police have been forced to lie in order to avoid the negative consequences of this rule. For instance, a police officer may stop a car and illegally search it. When the officer finds illegal weapons, he proceeds to court and claims the officer ran into a sign and upon search, the illegal weapons were discovered. This is commonly referred to as ‘test-lying’ and has adverse impacts on the credibility of the evidence provided in court. Critics of this argue that it promotes perjury and if practiced over time can encourage unbecoming behaviors by the police. Seemingly, a significant percentage of the police are unwilling to change their behaviors to be in line with the provisions of the rule. Also, the police are compelled to suppress important evidence that they collect or recover during arrest and search. Coupled with providing false testimony, it cannot be disputed that the exclusionary rule promotes subterfuge as well as police deception. Solutions to the Problem At this point in time, it is certain that the exclusionary rule has certain shortcomings that need to be bridged. To begin with, the provisions of the rule should be consistent with those of other laws to ensure effective implementations. In addition, they should be reflective of the police procedures to ensure that their implementation is easy. Further, the public should be informed about what they need to do and what they should refrain from doing in light of the rule. This would ensure that the police have an easy time to undertake their lawful duties accordingly. The law can also address this by giving the judges and law enforcement agencies the discretion to disregard the provisions of the rule in certain scenarios. This flexibility would enable the officers to work comfortably and produce satisfactory results. This role should be undertaken by stakeholders from both the public and the criminal justice system. To a great extent, this will enhance sustainability of the procedure and will ensure that all concerns are put in consideration. The government should provide all the resources that are required to effect the changes accordingly. Conclusion As it has come out from the study, we actually do not need the exclusionary rule. Undoubtedly, this rule has had adverse implications on the behavior of the police. The negative implications associated with it have direct impacts on the credibility of the evidence provided in courts. Besides greatly affecting innocent Americans, the law has left the criminals to go scot free. Thus instead of enhancing security, it has contributed significantly to promoting crime. Also worth noting are the inherent gaps between the rules and founding laws of the country. The intrinsic contradiction has made it difficult for the laws to be effectively employed by stakeholders in the legal sphere. As indicated earlier, the rule also promotes suppression of important evidence by the law enforcement officers. Its provisions are inadequate and it needs to be amended in order to yield sustainable outcomes. It is therefore true that in order to enhance justice by ensuring that evidence employed in courts from the police is credible, we do need the exclusionary rule. However, until judicial exceptions allowing judges to disregard evidence in some circumstances are proposed and implemented, the exclusionary rule remains inadequate and we do not need it. References Gittins, J. (2007). Excluding the exclusionary rule. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2007, 451-481. Josephson, M. (2009). To exclude or not to exclude: The future of the exclusionary rule after Herring v. United States. Creighton Law Review, 43, 175-203. Kamisar, Y. (2003). In defense of the search and seizure exclusionary rule. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26(1), 119. Lafave, W. (2009). Recent developments: The smell of Herring: A critique of the Supreme Court's latest assault on the exclusionary rule. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(3), 757-787. Lynch, T. (2000). In defense of the exclusionary rule. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 23(3), 711. Cases Cited Commonwealth v. Dana, 2 Metc. 329 [1841] Gouled v. United States 255 U.S. 298 [1921] Langdon v. People, 133 Illinois 382 [1890] Read More