Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule
Name:
Institution:
Date:
There is no criminal procedure topic that has faced fiery among legal scholars than the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. The Fourth Amendment states, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” shall not be violated, and that “no warrants shall issue” without sworn, particularized affirmations of probable cause. In justice day of 1914, the unanimous opinion for the court in the Weeks v. United States case adopted the exclusionary rule in federal prosecutions. Since this period was a period of muscular individual rights the court also enforced the rights under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule with an equally strong remedy CITATION Roo10 \l 1033 (Roots, 2010).
The rationale for implementing the exclusionary rule is to put the United States' courts and the officials in the Federal system, in exercising their powers and authority, under certain limitations and restraints in exercising such powers and author. In addition, the rule secures and protects the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects from all the unreasonable searches and seizures that are done under the disguise of the law by the courts and federal official. This protection does not only cover the accused but also the non-accused and it requires all who are entrusted under the United States Federal system with enforcing the law should strictly adhere to the rule CITATION The13 \l 1033 (Clancy, 2013).
The amendment exclusively protects against all repressive incursions by the state into the people's privacy with the modern focus being searches conducted by the police for suspects. The rule as determined by the court also implicitly protects against the use of any of such repressive incursions by the police during judicial proceedings that provide the exclusionary rule. Here evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and procedures cannot be used in such proceedings. The rule not derived textually as a constitutional principle, but it is justified as an expressive commitment to the constitutional rights and by the empirical claim increasing observance of constitutional rights by preventing violation of the Fourth Amendment by the police. Therefore, those who put into practice the criminal laws of the country to gain conviction via unlawful seizures have no sanctions in the courts of justice. These individuals are at all times required with the constitution's support and to which all people have the right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights CITATION Jac11 \l 1033 (Jacobi, 2011).
The exclusionary rule's scope has been reducing over the years The Supreme Court has articulated the rule as being a doctrine that is pragmatic and only applies when the benefits suppressing the evidence exceed its costs to the system of justice. The most significant exception is the “good-faith exception” where the rule is inapplicable to evidence seized illegally, but in “good-faith,” by law enforcing officers...