Exclusionary Rule and Good Faith Exception: A Legal Perspective

The exclusionary rule refers to a law that constrains the use of illegal evidence in a law court during a criminal trial. For instance, in the United States of America, the exclusionary rule prohibits the authority against the use of evidence collected in an abuse of the U.S constitution. Thus, good faith exception refers to the baring or rather excepting one from the exclusionary rule. It provides that unjustly collected evidence perhaps might be accepted at trials if the authorities have genuine reasons and beliefs that their actions are per the legal jurisdiction.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The purpose and scope of the exclusionary rule

Primarily, the exclusionary rule operates under the Fourth Amendments in the constitution of the United States of America, which protects the citizens against any form of unjustified or baseless administrative intrusions (Barbour, 2011). Therefore, the purpose of the rule is basically to provide the guidelines and make the authorities follow and obey the law. It ensures that no one at any given time is sentenced against false evidence. It justifies that all citizens are subjected to the same law, and no individual is above the rule of law. Secondly, it ensures a credible root of misconduct or criminal acts before the collection and examination of evidence. For instance, if an individual is suspected of having been involved in unlawful conduct, a proper examination must be done to ensure that there is no false accusation at any given time.

Moreover, exclusionary rule controls the governments' exercise of power to its citizens. It does not allow the exploitation of a peoples' private property, which can be used against them during jurisdiction. It works under the premise of until proven guilty, which promotes justice and fair trials during the proceedings of a court rule. Lastly, the purpose of the rule is to minimize any form of falsely manufactured evidence against any person during the court hearing or trials. It ensures that there proper documentation of evidence based on the facts.

Hence, the benefits of the exclusionary do exist. It prevents and protects the violation of the constitution. It provides support to the court in balancing constitutional interest as well as the adoption of more precise Fourth Amendments regulations. There are instances where the exclusionary rule has been practiced. For example, "in the case of Boyd vs. the United States, the Supreme Court held that demanding private papers from a defendant to use against him at trial was a violation of the indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." (Yagla, 1987). From the scenario, it is evident that the court protected Boyd by controlling the power of the government against using personal property as evidence during the trials.

Moreover, Yagla (1987) provides another instance in the "case of Weeks vs. the United States. The court held that the evidence collected during the illegal such violated the defendant's fourth amendment rights, and that use of the evidence in a federal criminal proceeding was prohibited." (Yagla, 1987). Thus, the exclusionary rule protects citizens against false evidence. However, the amendments in the constitution, perhaps in some instances, allow the rule of 'good faith exception.'

The Purpose of the Good Faith Exception of the Exclusionary rule

Contrary, the restriction of the exclusionary rule is referred to as good faith exception. Primarily, the purpose of good faith exception allows the judges to continue with the rulings if, for instance, law enforcers have a genuine reason on the illegally collected evidence. The doctrine allows the police to operate in good faith when conducting the illegal gathering of evidence, which then permits the use of illegally gathered evidence during the trials. Moreover, the good-faith exception allows the court to consider the quality and essence at which the police officers conducted the searching of evidence (Barbour, 2011).

Besides, there are several critics of the exclusionary rule because many criminals take advantage of the rule. The critics are meant to prove that the good-faith exception is perhaps reasonable at a given point. For instance, in the case of 'Weeks vs. the United States' (Yagla, 1987), the reliable evidence provided by authority is rejected on the grounds of Fourth Amendments, hence the distortion of the facts which results in the freeing of the guilty. Moreover, the exclusionary rule works indiscriminately. More often, the evidence is withdrawn despite the effort of the police officers using the good faith or best judgment in gathering the evidence. Thus, the good-faith exception provides a reasonable exception in searching and presenting the evidence to the court contrary to the Fourth Amendments, which promotes exclusionary rule.

Conclusion

The exclusionary rule does not allow the use of illegal evidence during the trials in court. It operates under the Fourth Amendments in the constitution of the United States of America. The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the citizens from the harassment of the police. Contrary to the sentiment, it does not protect the unlawful criminals who are guilty. However, more often, guilty criminals take advantage of the rule as it violates the providence of evidence.

On the other hand, the good-faith exception refers to excepting one from the exclusionary rule. The rule should be endorsed in the constitutional law of the States because it allows a good-faith search and presentation of the evidence done legally (Gardner, 1984). It does not abuse the exclusionary rule but preferably operates in a reasonable manner enabling the police officers to provide facts to curb the criminal acts.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Gardner, M. R. (1984, January 01). Emerging Good Faith Exception to the Miranda Rule - A Critique, 429-475.

Yagla, Carolyn A. (1987). The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule: The Example of "New Federalism" in the States. e-Publications@Marquette.

Barbour, E. C., & Library of Congress. (2011). Davis v. United States: Retroactivity and the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.