Exclusionary Rule 1
SHOULD THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BE BANNED?
The Exclusionary Rule should not be banned. This rule has actually
been around since the early 20th century and applied to the federal court
system. But a United States Supreme Court case in 1961 changed it to be
applied to all jurisdictions. This was the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643
(1961). Therefore, the decision of the Court meant that in federal, state or local
courts, if evidence is obtained illegally, the Exclusionary Rule would
nonetheless apply. This ruling has been slightly changed by a few subsequent
Supreme Court cases, but the basics, of course, remain in place.
The “rule” came out of a Court opinion, but it is actually based on the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. That Amendment gives protection
against illegal searches and seizures by police. Although not a codified law, it
is a constitutional right. The rights provided to the people under the
Constitution should not be banned—none of them. But, it is especially
important when criminal matters are involved.
The Exclusionary Rule limits law enforcement by restricting their
searches and seizing of evidence. They cannot randomly search a person’s
home or car, or person without a warrant, except under very specific
circumstances. If evidence is obtained without going through the proper
procedures, in other words, against the law, the evidence is not allowed to be
used against the defendant. This is one of the basic rights all people should
Exclusionary Rule 2
have without a doubt. It is a right everyone has to be secure in their home and
property.
It keeps law enforcement “honest” by making sure that all the rules are
followed when they suspect someone has broken the law. There must be
probable cause and a warrant obtained to search, under most circumstances.
If a person is innocent, why would it matter if the police searched their
house? It matters. Privacy matters. It matters that a person can go home, lock
the door and be sure that the police are not going to burst in and conduct a
search for some “illegal” materials or some criminal evidence.
The people in this country depend on the local, state and federal laws for
protection and safety. The highest law of the land of course, is the
Constitution, which is the ultimate source. To ban the Exclusionary Rule
would be to set aside part of the Constitution, and that would certainly be an
erosion of the rights of the people. It would set the stage for the police to
decide who is a criminal and where and how they will search for evidence.
That is not and should never be the decision of the police. Therefore, the police
should not, in isolation, decide how to gather evidence and from whom.
Part of the idea of the Exclusionary Rule, of course, is the principle that a
person is innocent until proven guilty. So, an unwarranted search is a search
of an innocent person’s home. No matter what the police might think is
involved, they must go through the proper channels to get a warrant to search.
Many “avenues” are in place to allow evidence to be taken and used properly
Exclusionary Rule 3
against a suspect. Of course law enforcement can also obtain a valid warrant,
or get consent to search a car, a home or whatever property or person. It
would be a tragedy to have this rule banned.
Cornell University Law School
Legal Information Institute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educatorresources/headlines/criminal-procedure/
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Exclusionary Rule 4