PerfectCustomPapers | The Court has identified situations in which evidence obtained is admissible in court

The Court has identified situations in which evidence obtained is admissible in court

The Court has identified situations in which evidence obtained is admissible in court even though something may have been wrong with either the conduct of the police or the court that issued the warrant. These exceptions to the exclusionary rule fall into four categories: good faith, inevitable discovery, purged taint, and independent source. Discuss the cases that led to these exceptions and the reasoning behind the exceptions.
A number of proposals have been put forth to replace the exclusionary rule. Discuss the alternatives including the strengths and weaknesses of each. Discuss the reasons why such alternatives are not popular in the United States.
The Court has stated in a number of cases that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. Discuss the importance of this purpose in cases involving exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

Sample Answer

The exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court to deter police misconduct. However, there are specific exceptions where such evidence can still be admitted. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Good Faith Exception:

Cases: United States v. Leon (1984), Massachusetts v. Sheppard (2018)
Reasoning: Protects officers who act in good faith reliance on a warrant even if the warrant is later deemed invalid due to technical errors or mistakes by other officers. This encourages officers to use warrants and discourages deliberate police misconduct.

Full Answer Section

Inevitable Discovery Exception:

Cases:Nix v. Williams (1969), Murray v. United States (1988)
Reasoning:Excludes evidence only if it would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means regardless of the initial illegality. This prevents rewarding purposeful misconduct but allows use of evidence not tainted by the illegality.

Purged Taint Doctrine:

Cases:Wong Sun v. United States (1963), Murray v. United States (1988)
Reasoning:If the connection between the illegality and the evidence is attenuated through sufficient intervening lawful steps, the taint of the initial illegality may be “purged” and the evidence used. This balances deterrence with preventing exclusion of relevant evidence.

Independent Source Doctrine:

Cases:Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1972), Murray v. United States (1988)
Reasoning:If the evidence was obtained independently of the illegal activity, and not prompted by it, it is admissible even if the illegal activity also led to the discovery of the evidence. This avoids punishing the government for an unrelated illegality.

Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule:

Rule of Harmless Error: Excludes evidence only if it materially affected the verdict.

Strengths: More flexible, avoids excluding reliable evidence for minor technicalities.

Weaknesses: Difficult to assess if error affected the verdict, may undermine deterrence.

Supervisory Exclusion: Excludes evidence but only against the officer who committed the misconduct.

Strengths: Targets individual misconduct without suppressing relevant evidence.

Weaknesses: May not deter systemic misconduct, leaves victims without remedy.

Civil Damages: Allows lawsuits against officers for misconduct.

Strengths: Provides direct compensation to victims, potential deterrent effect.

Weaknesses: Burdensome for victims, limited deterrent effect on systemic issues.

Reasons for Unpopularity in the US:

Strong support for law enforcement and concern about hindering investigations.
Fear of excluding reliable evidence and jeopardizing convictions.
Belief that exclusionary rule already deters misconduct effectively.

Importance of Deterrence in Exceptions:

Balancing deterrence with other objectives like fairness and efficient prosecution is crucial. Exceptions consider:

Severity of the misconduct.
Good faith efforts by officers.
Degree of connection between illegality and evidence.
Availability of alternative means of obtaining the evidence.

Exceptions aim to deter serious misconduct while allowing use of evidence not directly tainted by it. Ultimately, the courts strive for a balance that upholds both individual rights and effective law enforcement.

Remember, this is a complex topic with ongoing debate. Consider researching specific cases and alternative proposals to form your own informed opinion.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer

No More Worries!

Paper Formatting

No Lateness!

Our Guarantees