When talking about the Exclusionary Rule to the Fourth Amendment, there are two major exceptions that must be considered. First, the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine (IDD) proposes that the Exclusion Rule does not apply when evidence found unreasonably would have been inevitably found through other means. Second, the Independent Source Doctrine (ISD) proposes that independent searches would lead officers to finding the evidence that was originally found through an unreasonable search.

When evidence is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, that evidence (lest an Exclusionary Rule exception applies) will be suppressed. However, if defendants’ testimonies are inconsistent, the defendant can be impeached by using the illegally obtained evidence. Following this line of thought, there is a third exception to the Exclusionary Rule: the Good Faith Exception. The Exclusionary Rule is designed to deter police misconduct. If there is no misconduct from an officer in realizing a search (using a warrant that was unreasonably granted by an impartial judge), the Good Faith Exception would apply.       

The Exclusionary Rule applies when unreasonable searches are conducted in a place when a person has a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP). A reasonable search demands a warrant (which is motivated by probable cause); when a search is conducted reasonably the Fourth Amendment is satisfied and the Exclusionary Rule does not apply.

{t_essay_order}

In cases when probably cause does not justify a warrant, officers must propose a valid reason for ignoring the probable cause requirement. Examples of exceptions to the probable cause requirements include the following: search incident to arrest, lawful consent and mobile conveyance. When none of these exceptions is violating the probable cause principle, the only way that officers can uphold the validity of the evidence is through the justification of one of the aforementioned exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule.

The Exclusionary Rule is a means that the Supreme Court designed to deter police misconduct; the rule tries to uphold the efficient administration of justice (in cases concerning Fourth Amendment rights violations). Criminal defense council is also a critical element in guaranteeing effective administration of justice in America. Criminal defense council knows what citizens’ rights are, including their Fourth Amendment rights. If this council did not exist, defendants could very easily be abused of their constitutional right to privacy by unlawful officers and inefficient judges.

Effective administration of justice necessitates effective deterrents to misconduct, corruption and injustice. The Exclusionary Rule is a tool specifically designed to uphold Americans’ constitutional right to privacy. However, only when there are effective criminal defense councils, officers and judges can be incentivized to be efficient and respectful of due process. In cases of misconduct, council must not only defend the citizen, but also contribute in deterring further misconduct (through civil action suits and even criminal suits).

arrow_upward