- Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the
United States , under constitutional law, that holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant'sconstitutional rights is inadmissible for acriminal prosecution in a court of law. This may be considered an example of aprophylactic rule formulated by the judiciary in order to protect a constitutional right. However, in some circumstances at least, the exclusionary rule may also be considered to follow directly from the constitutional language, such as the Fifth Amendment's command that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, for prosecutors and
police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which provide for protection from unreasonable searches and seizure and compelledself-incrimination . The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees theright to counsel .The exclusionary rule judges the admissibility of evidence based on
deontological ethics ; that is, it is concerned with "how" evidence is acquired, rather than "what" the evidence proves. For this reason, in strict cases, when an illegal action is used bypolice /prosecution to gain any incriminating result, "all" evidence whose recovery stemmed from the illegal action—this evidence is known as "fruit of the poisonous tree "—can be thrown out from a jury (or be grounds for amistrial if too much information has been irrevocably revealed).The exclusionary rule applies to all persons within the United States regardless of whether they are citizens, immigrants (legal or illegal), or visitors.
History of the rule
Prior to the independence of the United States, the courts of England held that involuntary confessions were inadmissible as evidence. Subsequently, the
Supreme Court of the United States likewise held, in "Bram v. United States", ["Bram v. United States", [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/168/532.html 168 U.S. 532] (1897).] that involuntary confessions are inherently untrustworthy and therefore excluded them. The Court in "Bram" did not announce a strong version of the exclusionary rule that would apply uniformly to exclude all evidence gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights, but instead announced a weak version that excluded only involuntary confessions obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment.Before the strong version of the exclusionary rule was addressed and adopted by the federal courts, it had already been adopted by at least one state court, namely the
Iowa Supreme Court :In the 1886 case of "
Boyd v. United States ", ["Boyd v. United States", [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/616.html 116 U.S. 616] (1886).] the U.S. Supreme Court addressed compulsory production of business papers, rather than an actual search and seizure, and the Court excluded those papers based on a combination of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. "Boyd" was closely limited to its facts, and the Court stated in 1904 that the Fourth Amendment does not extend to "excluding testimony which has been obtained" by wrongful searches and seizures. [Adams v. New York, [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/192/585.html 192 U.S. 585] (1904).]The strong version of the exclusionary rule was announced by the federal courts in 1914 in the case of "
Weeks v. United States .," where it was found to be a requirement under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The "Weeks Rule", which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by theVolstead Act . Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for "victimless" crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations.]ee also
*
Deontological ethics vs.Consequentialism References
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.