Exclusionary Rule Evaluation free essay sample

Furthermore, the rule applies to interrogations where the offender is often pressured by officers to confess to their crimes. In turn, the rule also applies to the Sixth Amendment that ensures every offender has the right to have legal counsel. Ultimately, the rule greatly influences the credibility of any evidence gathered, by government officers, for use in the prosecution of an accused offender. If the evidence presented to the court is found to have been collected in violation of the rule it may be suppressed in any federal or state court. The exclusionary rule is divided into three elements. The first element requires that an item is physically collected as evidence. The second element is that the item of evidence must have been collected by a governmental officer or a person acting on their behalf, for example; confidential informants or citizens acting under posse comitatus. The third element is that there has to be a connection between the collected item of evidence and an illegal action by the officer in obtaining the items (Zalman, 2008). We will write a custom essay sample on Exclusionary Rule Evaluation or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page From a law enforcement perspective, state officers were often overly aggressive throughout the twentieth century and pushed the envelope in regards to the individual rights conferred by the United States Constitution. The states often wrote individual legal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Hence, the incorporation doctrine was implemented and the states were required to adhere to federal law. According to Zalman (2008) the term incorporation, â€Å"indicates that the mechanism by which specific Bill of Rights provisions (e. g. the Fourth Amendment) apply to the state officers is by application of the provision through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment† (p. 24). Since its creation, the justification underlying the exclusionary rule has evolved from a principled rationale based on a theory of limited governmental powers, to a deterrence rationale based on pragmatic considerations brought on by officers cutting corners to solve a criminal case (Fourth Amend ment, 2010). Basically, this means that not all evidence produced in court is collected legally by the investigating officer, thus it cannot be introduced by the prosecution. The principle purpose behind the exclusionary rule is to deterrence police misconduct. As exceptions are often common place with manmade rules and regulations, there too are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The first exception resulted in 1984 from the Supreme Court case Colon v. the United States and is known as the Independent Source Doctrine. This exception occurs when an item of evidence is initially obtained illegally, but a warrant is later issued to gather the same item of evidence (Fourth Amendment, 2010). This exception to the rule often arises during my investigations, when I request telephone records based upon exigent circumstances and later write a search warrant for the telephone records. The second exception resulted in 1984 from the Supreme Court case Nix v. Williams and is known as the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. This exception occurs when evidence is seized illegally, but there is substantial proof that an officer would have eventually found the item of evidence through legal means (Fourth Amendment, 2010). The third exception resulted in 1984 from the Supreme Court case United States v. Leon and is known as the exception of Good Faith. In this exception allows the introduction of evidence seized by law enforcement officers upon the use of an erroneously issued warrant. However, the officer must have been acting in good faith when the warrant was issued by a magistrate acting in a neutral and detached manner (Fourth Amendment, 2010). The main cost of the exclusionary rule is that law enforcement officers must spend costly time, sometimes precious time, to proceed with their pursuit of criminal offenders. The requirements to obtain a search warrant under this rule take time to acquire and hence deter quick police action against crime (Zalman, 2008). Another cost is departmental training requirements. Government law enforcement agencies are required to spend more money to train their perspective recruits. The benefits of the exclusionary rule are that it ensures law enforcement agencies adhere to good conduct and practice in handling criminal investigations. Furthermore, the rule protects the basic rights of an individual including privacy. I believe the strongest benefit to the rule is that it ensures integrity, professionalism and quality training is upheld in the justice and law enforcement systems (Zalman, 2008). As for the Riverside Sherriff’s Department, my administration recognizes the detrimental impact a constitutional violation has on the department and the community. As a result, the Fourth Amendment is instructed to exhaust in the police basic academy and throughout a peace officers career, as such, compliance with the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights is a valued ideology within the law enforcement profession. There are effective alternative remedies, which can be employed to not only deter illegal behavior, but hold government officers accountable for violations of the exclusionary rule. The four general categories of alternative remedies are; civil lawsuits, injunctions against police action, criminal prosecution of police officers, and administrative discipline (Zalman, 2008). A personal financial sanction would undoubtedly be an effective deterrent, because it penalizes the offending officer and compensates the citizens whose rights were violated. There is no greater motivation to modifying prohibited behavior than financial ramifications (Deputy B. Lee, personal communication, July 1995). Civil lawsuits are a major concern for law enforcement agencies for two reasons. First, the monetary impact lawsuits have on the department as a whole, and second, the violation of public trust, confidence, and the perception the police department law enforcement ability are put into question. Civil lawsuits can also change how a department responds to a situation through modification of the agencies general orders and policy. I support the exclusionary rule and the message it sends to both federal and state government officers. Though there are certain aspects of the rule that may play to the advantage of a guilty offender. I believe the benefits are more fruitful. In my 18 years as a peace officer, I have always believed that truth and justice should prevail in a court of law. While I believe such intentional violations are rare occurrences today, it is because of the rule that government agencies now have extensive training to provide officers with a better understanding and respect for individual rights under the Constitution. References Fourth Amendment, (2010). Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The exclusionary law. Viewed at, http://caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/data/constitution/amendment04/06. html, on 8th May 2010 Zalman, M. (2008). Criminal procedure:  Constitution and society, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall