We have witnessed various forms of injustice throughout history. These include those who don’t know what their rights are and those who allow the government to exploit them. The United States Constitution is infringed on the use of evidence collected by the government. An exclusionary rule prohibits lawlessly obtained evidence in criminal trials. It is intended to discourage police misconduct. Inculpatory evidence can be excluded from a trial if it is proven that the evidence was obtained in violation of a Constitutional provision. Three major cases are Weeks, Wolf, Colorado, and Mapp, Ohio that all this has been sparked from: Each one of these cases was a major influence on the current criminal justice system. To fully grasp the Fourth Amendment and its relevance to these Supreme Court Cases, we must be familiar with it. The Fourth Amendment was an addition to the Constitution’s bill of rights in 1791. It is meant to protect American citizens against illegal searches and seizures. Officials cannot search your house or personal property without a warrant. This provision’s ultimate purpose is to protect people’s privacy and prevent unreasonable government intrusions (Smentkowski 2019, 2019). However, the Fourth amendment doesn’t guarantee protection against all searches or seizures. Only those made by the government are protected. To assert violation of Fourth Modification as the basis to suppress relevant proof, court had required that applicant prove they were victims of invasions of privacy to have sound standing to invoke protection under the Fourth Modification. However, the Supreme Court has rejected this demand. Instead, exclusion must be decided only after a resolution to the substantive question about whether Fourth modification rights have been violated. That successively requires that an applier proves that they have an excusable expectation that privacy was not being desecrated willily-nilly by the government. Unless an exception applies, warrantless searches for personal premises are prohibited in general. A warrantless search of personal premises is legal if it is authorized by a political candidate. There are situations where individuals are in imminent danger or evidence is at risk of destruction. The Fourth Amendment is not the only important factor. It is also crucial to fully comprehend the exclusionary rules. Even though laws were created to protect Americans, regulations must still be followed. Seven exceptions to the exclusionary rules are available in this instance. The Inevitable detection rule: This includes evidence that could have been discovered legally. The Independent source doctrine: Evidence that is discovered through illegal searches, but later found independently through search. Knock and declare: When an officer executes a search warrant, this rule applies. The officer does not generally force himself into a residence. Instead, he/she knocks on the door to identify themselves and waits for a reasonable answer. Attenuation principle: evidence may be used when the relationship between evidence acquired and illegal method is distant and lessened. Good faith exception: Officers who believe they are acting in compliance with the justice system (e.g., using a warrant later discovered to be unreliable) fall under this category. While this doesn’t always cause the exclusionary rule to be applied, it can be enforced if there has been misconduct by police or deliberate acts. In-court identification: A witness can make an in court identification despite any previous wrongdoing. Weeks v. U.S is the first case to establish the exclusionary rule. Fremont Weeks, a man known for having shipped lottery tickets via mail in violation of the criminal law (Reed 2019), is the subject of this case. Weeks was taken into custody by police. They also searched his home and found evidence that led to Weeks being convicted. Weeks was subsequently convicted.
He appealed from his conviction, arguing against the Bill of Rights. He believed he was entitled protection against illegal acts infringing his rights to search and seizure. (Duignan, 2019, The search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, according to all four justices at the United States Supreme Court. Here, we can see that the “fruit form the poisonous plant” metaphor is used to refer to tainted testimony. Wolf v. Colorado also shows that the state court found the advocate guilty of collusion to black-market abortion. The petitioner appealed. His Fourth change constitutional right of being free from misappropriated search and seizure was violated. The Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that group action can still be taken if there is evidence from an associate black-market or state search and seizure. Weeks & Wolf were the catalyst for numerous variations in the rule. The rule of evidence was expanded across the country in 1961 and became a viable defense for criminal defendants. Dollree Mapping, the plaintiff, was subject to an unwarranted search of her home for a bombing suspect in 1957. This all happened after the Cleveland police entered the house. Although they didn’t find the suspect in the home, officers found certain books and photos that were considered pornographic and therefore illegal in Ohio (Duignan 2019, 2019). Mapp was convicted on the basis of the evidence. The Ohio Supreme Court heard the appeal and found Mapp guilty of violating the law on the foundation of this evidence. However, they proceeded to convict Mapp on the grounds that the states were not required to follow the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court reversed the Ohio court’s decision on June 19, 1961. They found that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy against “police intrusion into privacy”. (Duignam 2019). DollreeMapp won the U.S. Supreme Court’s favor by six votes to three. I live with a drug dealer. A strange car and a strong smell of marijuana have been reported by neighbors. Two officers came knocking on the door, asking for Jose Duarte. They claim that they have a warrant for entry to the house and search illegal substances. When we asked them for the warrant, they refused to reveal it. They are looking in every corner of the house, and stumble upon our bedroom. Inside is a 4 ounces pot jar. My boyfriend was taken into custody by the officers. We are searching for the best attorney to help Jose get out of jail as quickly as possible. Michael Aaronson was recommended by several family members. When I was explaining the events from my point of view, he continued to interrupt to ask me important questions. After I had shared everything with her, our attorney went on to tell Jose what he could. Aaronson explained that the officers had crossed their limits and told me that there was a case against them. We were all ready to get justice once Jose Duarte appeared in court. Jose Duarte was presented by his attorney. Jose Duarte was allowed to present his client before the judge allowed the other officer to speak. According to the police officer, he was concerned because he had received multiple calls from informants and call ins. The informants described a strong odor of marijuana and unusual vehicles that were engaging Duarte. Aaronson questioned the officer about any other reasons they might want to search his house. He received a reply of “No”, and was then asked if they were authorized to search the whole property. Aaronson continued to claim that the officers violated Fourth Amendment law by failing to present warrants upon request. Aaronson also stated that they searched the entire property instead of only the specified area. Because they searched the whole house, Aaronson stated that the officers found marijuana. However, this is directly contrary to the constitution and rights of Americans. They have no case if they didn’t find the drugs. They left with only a few complaints from neighbors and not any evidence or probable cause. What’s the point of having the marijuana removed from the case?
The only thing left of the incident was a police officer making an arrest. With the experience I’ve had, I think the exclusionary ruling is a safety blanket for all the shameful actions that occur behind closed doors within our criminal justice system. To protect and serve those chosen to do so, the government created a clause that allows the public to defend itself. This rule is hypocritical. First, even though the Bill of Rights has been ratified in 1791 we still find the system failing us more than one hundred twenty years later. Weeks was famous for hauling lotto tickets. However the system cannot act unjustly. This is why there is a system. The system is there to keep order. Another reason is that officials cannot take responsibility and decide how to deal with cases. For someone to be able to do a search and possible seizure, they must have proof of wrongdoing. It is possible that someone could be searched at will, have the evidence examined in inappropriate ways, and continue to face enforcement questions regarding their conduct. As a Black woman living in America, I have a keen awareness of certain types of injustice. These are mostly due to the criminal justice systems that have consistently let me and others down. I will admit, as any educated person, that I enjoy the idea of holding the system accountable. A system that is willing to accept responsibility for their actions and move on with an educated mindset is what I consider the best. But that won’t be America. We see law enforcement taking advantage of people’s education, power, and status in the community. This creates a fear and distrust of government officials. This rule is beneficial for law enforcement, according to my forward-looking opinion. Even though it is impossible to ensure that the law is enforced through the criminal justice system, a standard for the law would allow them to be there with everyone else. Although these landmark Supreme Court cases occurred more than 50 years ago, today’s injustices continue to be a problem. The Little Rock Police Department’s narcotics unit served each warrant with a “no knock” warrant. Law-enforcement officers must prove that the suspect is a danger to their safety or to their ability to dispose of the evidence. (Balko 2019, 2019). However, each case will require different evidence. It’s not enough to simply say that all drug dealer are violent. We will therefore serve all warrants for drug possession with a no knock raid. However, that’s exactly what the LRPD narcotics unit did and Little Rock criminal courts judges let it get away. Yes, I do agree with the exclusionary ruling for law officials. Because even if we fail them, there is another option. To support this idea for citizens, it is in my country’s best interests to protect their citizens. Although she was convicted of Mapp in Ohio, her case was eventually heard by U.S Supreme Court. Despite her being a law abiding citizen, she was subject to suffering. This is why we have to be cautious about reacting and acting even though we know that our lives are at the mercy of the government. After considering all the pros and cons, I think it’s better to have these laws in place and allow criminal justice to use them as they see fit. Rather than having no law at all and living in a nation of tyranny.