CRITICAL ANALYSIS: WHEN EVIDENCE CANT BE USED DUE TO POLICE MISTAKES AND MISCONDUCT

Critical Analysis: When Evidence cannot be Used due to Police Mistakes and Misconduct Student Name Institution Professor Name Course Date Critical Analysis: When Evidence cannot be Used due to Police Mistakes and Misconduct Police brutality, or malpractice, is perhaps one of the most contentious areas of criminal justice policy as far as exemptions are concerned. This issue relates to the ‘exclusionary rule,’ a legal doctrine that seeks to exclude tainted evidence obtained unlawfully. The rule enhances the constitutional safeguards, especially the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, this has been widely employed, and its operation, the limitations, and possibilities of employing it in the prevention of police brutality have received extensive discourse. This paper considers the consequences of suppression of evidence, assesses the efficiency of the exclusionary rule, and considers the other ways of obtaining justice. This paper believes that while the exclusionary rule is essential in safeguarding constitutional provisions, it should be complemented by systematic reforms to increase police accountability and the legal system. The Exclusionary Rule: Origins and Purpose This bar ensures that insistence on the unreasonable search and seizure rights provided in the Fourth Amendment can prevent police misconduct. As grounded on the case “Mapp v Ohio (1961), it asserts the power of the judiciary on constitutionalism. Critics, such as Daly (2011), contend that its purpose is to discourage unlawful conduct among police officials so that they adjudge themselves to the law. This deterrence depends on the idea that excluding evidence balances the costs of procedural violations against constitutional protections, thus pressuring police departments to stay within the constitutional requirements. The significance of the rule for the above aim has been discussed, and its efficiency in the objective needs to be analyzed adequately. Some common objections that can be pointed out are that suppression costs are usually placed on prosecutors and victims, not the officers engaged in misconduct. For example, Cicchini (2010) posits that officers should accept that the costs of the misconduct exceed the benefits; otherwise, they may disregard violations of constitutional rights. Impact on Justice and Law Enforcement Some of the controversies regarding the exclusionary rule include the fact that the rule serves two contradictory aspects of justice and law enforcement. On the one hand, it protects the constitutional provision of a fair trial for the defendant by barring the admissibility of any evidence procured through illegitimate means (Logan, 2011). On the other hand, critics state that such an approach may lead to guilty individuals escaping the hook and eroding the public’s confidence in the legal system. Real-life examples are used to highlight the relationship between the rule and police conduct. For instance, exclusionary rules have been postured to shape police conduct in countries with pluralistic legal structures, such as the United States (Logan, 2011). They show that where such regulations are implemented, professionalism and compliance with the law are promoted. Current case law has somewhat restrained the rule’s applicability. While previously, the accused might have been able to rely on the unlawfulness of police conduct as grounds to exclude unlawful evidence at trial, most modern courts allow evidence to be entered even when it has been acquired unconstitutionally by the police. Logan (2011) criticizes such rulings as capable of lowering general deterrence and weakening the rule’s capability of holding police officers accountable. Judicial Discretion and Systemic Bias Another factor that creates an essential aspect of the court’s decision-making and is independent of the legislative branch is the discretion ...