Introduction
Many argue that the passing of exclusionary rule allowed protection of criminals hence, increase of criminal activities. Moreover, the rule protects victims from illegal searches from police officers. Thus, for two decades now, the exclusionary rule has seen criminals transport dangerous weapons and hard drugs all over the world. Astonishingly, if police officers obtain evidence through searching of victims without a warrant of arrest, the court of law has the right to discard that evidence. In law courts, the rule has met antagonistic moments where some term it fine, while others oppose it vehemently.
For example, the exclusionary rule does not allow the use of evidence that are contrary to United States constitution especially offences against the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Notably, the Fourth Amendment allows government security agencies against participating in rummage or seizure of persons. These Amendments are procedural criminal rules that allow police officers to arrest suspects who have committed an offence. The question that many ask themselves is to why there is an exclusionary rule, which to them protects criminals who have gone against this amendment. Nevertheless, the exclusionary rule was an amendment to promote human rights and spur protection of individuals from false accusations either from individuals or from the state’s law enforcement agencies.
The uniqueness of the exclusionary rule is that, unlike other laws, this particular one does not provide a solution to victims whose constitutional rights are in jeopardy. Rather, the exclusionary rule bars and largely prohibits all police officers from violating personal constitutional rights thus rendering people a convulsive environment free from police harassment and abuse. Different law firms and law experts including United States judiciary, for a long time now, some view this law as advantageous advantages and disadvantages. (FindLaw, 2010, Para. 1-8).
The Impact of the Exclusionary Rule
It all started in New York when state troops searching for people with illegal firearms arrested one person without substantive evidence of conviction. These troops arrested a person by the name Turriago who was in possession of drugs and dead human bodies. However, in an appellate court, the judge ruled that police officers did not have any mandate whatsoever in suspecting Turrago to have committed that offence. Furthermore, to police dismay, the court went further and indicted police officers with harassment contrary to the Fourth Amendment. This is because; the exclusionary rule affects judicial proceedings in a case where; a person has committed an offense contrary to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth United States Amendment. Therefore, any evidence submitted in a court of law based on the violation of these three Amendments is invalid.
It is undeniable to say, outside judicial proceedings, the exclusionary rule is a custodian of promoting human rights and constitutional protection. In essence, the law allows the guilty to prevail amid criminal acts in order to protect individual rights. In addition to this, the law provides a platform for thorough investigations from police officers who in a court of law, must follow criminal procedures into detail, and make judicial proceedings a success.
For example, appellate courts must issue warrant of arrests to police officers who will then have the mandate to arrest a suspect. In this way, both judicial proceedings and constitutional human rights uphold to a larger percentage. Thus, in a court of law, the exclusionary rule protects the suspect and in many occasions; the exclusionary rule protects the suspect against receiving massive punishments. (Washington, 2005, pp.785-794).
Exclusionary Rule and the Judicial Proceedings
Largely, in many instances, the application of exclusionary rule in judicial proceedings has its own impacts especially in determining the outcome of a court case. If the police officers prepare evidences based on the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the exclusionary rule undeniably favors the suspect and condemns police officers for lack of substantive evidence. For example, if police officers are searching for a terrorist suspect; and maliciously broke into the suspect’s house without a warrant of arrest, any evidence whether the suspect is guilty or not will not apply in the court of law. Undeniably, the law is a mockery to justice as the suspect can escape punishment due to procedural intonations demanded in the exclusionary rule. Some critics argue that, the law demand more from police officers in terms of acquiring warrant of arrest and conducting substantive evidence, which will see smooth judicial proceedings. (Wagner, 1987, pp. 75-91).
Many judicial proceedings appear marred with many false statements especially from the police who fear the consequences of the exclusionary rule should they have inadmissible evidences against suspects-‘Testilying’. Interestingly, courtrooms allow these to happen to protect ‘Exclusionary Rule’. Moreover, the situation is so demanding requiring of police officers to indict suspects through subterfuge or any other deceptive tactic. Statistics carried out by numerous law firms indicate that, many judges, prosecutors and human rights crusaders link police with deception behaviors, which cannot change any soon. They do so because of the very exclusionary rule standards that otherwise might turn to hunt them.
Conclusion
The exclusionary rule is not only affecting police officers but judges as well. These two organs affect judicial proceedings and the outcome of a court case. Special attention appears to be drawn from the Supreme Court, which absconds appellate judges from making rulings on violent crimes where guilty falls on the part of defendants. This leads to ‘inevitable discovery’ of the police, whence, determining whether judges suppress the case or allow it. Nevertheless, the exclusionary rule allows police officers to conduct substantive evidence on suspects.
Reference List
FindLaw. (2010). Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule. Web.
Wagner, A. (1987). The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: Some implications for the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15(1), 75-91.
Washington, E. (2005). Excluding the Exclusionary Rule: Natural Law vs. Judicial Personal Policy Preferences. Deakin Law Review, 10(2), 785-794.