The constitution of the United States of America was created for the people, by the people and of the people. Freedom and protection of individuals rights and property was the key element of which the founding fathers sought to protect when drafting the Constitution. Citizens were granted liberties they were deprived of before, which lead to the creation of the Executive branch of government, created and tasked with the responsibility to execute and enforce the new laws of the land. Finding the balance between protecting the freedom and properties of the people, and enforcing the law is a discretionary struggle for those set out to police the public. Rules and legislation has been created to govern and regulate the police so citizens may have a fair trial, should they ever be accused of violating a law and asked to stand in a courtroom. The accused offenders have the right granted by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to a fair trial and procedural due process, where they have the right to face their accuser and the evidence presented against them as well as having their own rights respected. But evidence is not always rightfully obtained, or seized. Some evidence is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree”, and may be excluded from court if determined to be seized under a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. One way the Fourth Amendment is enforced is through “The Exclusionary Rule”.
The Exclusionary Rule prohibits the use of evidence seized through the violation of the Fourth Amendment and deems it inadmissible in a trial. When gathering and seizing evidence, officers are required to follow rules pertaining to the prohibition of illegal searches and seizures. Failing to do so has its consequences. Law enforcement officers are deterred from committing such violations with punishments including, but not limited to civil cases and internal reprimand by the law enforcement agency, aside from the evidence not being admitted into the courtroom in a trial of which a potentially guilty person may escape sentencing because of the violation. The officer carries the guilt of essentially letting a guilty offender free. The Exclusionary rule was not always set and acknowledged in the courts. Three particular cases took place in the United States that led to the actual full on adoption of the rule.
Weeks v. United States first developed the Exclusionary Rule. On December 21, 1911, Fremont Weeks was arrested at the Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri for using the mails to send lottery tickets. At the time of his arrest, police officers went to his home, gained entry, and seized “books, letters, money, papers, stocks, deeds, candies, clothes and other property”, all without a search warrant (OpenJurist). During the pre-trial process before a jury was sworn in, Weeks petitioned to have his belongings returned to him. The evidence acquired by the police was partially returned. All but incriminating evidence against Weeks, which was held with the intention to be used in court. Weeks argued all of his belongings should be returned to him and none be used against him because they were obtained illegally, without a search warrant, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the United States constitution. The District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri rejected and denied his claim, used the evidence in court, and was later convicted. Weeks appealed the decision, and when it was eventually heard in the United States Supreme Court, it was decided that officers acted in “direct violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant” therefore the ruling of the original court “must be reversed” (OpenJurist). Basically, the ruling stated that since the officers illegally made their way into Weeks’ home and illegal searched and seized his belongings, the evidenced seized could not be introduced in the court and should have been returned to him. Since the evidence was admitted as “fruit of a poisonous tree”, it was classified as tainted evidence. The tainted evidence led to the conviction of Weeks therefore, the charges against him were dropped.
“Due process of law” is required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Julius A. Wolf argued in Wolf v. Colorado that his right to due process was denied when illegal seized evidence was used and presented against him after he was convicted of conspiracy to perform criminal abortions. Once convicted, he filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Colorado but the court ruled in the favor of the original court. He then appealed the decision through a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is “an order compelling the lower court to produce the record” of the proceedings (Ferdico, 2013, 40). Weeks’ petition to the court of last resort was granted and heard by the Supreme Court of The United States. The case began argument on October 19, 1948, and was not decided on until June 27 of the following year. The court held that “the states need not to observe the federal rule which excludes from criminal prosecutions evidence obtained by illegal search” (Desky, 1950). The ruling of the original court in Colorado stands. Although it held that the exclusionary rule was applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment’s clause of due process, the Supreme Court essentially decided that illegally obtained evidence was only to be excluded in a federal court, but the exclusionary rule did not necessarily apply to the states. It left the “enforcement of Fourth Amendment rights to the discretion of individual states” (Ferdico, 2013, 70).
Mapp v. Ohio established the Exclusionary Rule as the principal method to prevent violations of the Fourth Amendment. It is considered the landmark decision that ruled all unconstitutionally seized evidence shall not be allowed to be presented in a trial of any court. Dollree Mapp worked for the notorious Cleveland mobster and former public enemy number one, Shondor Birns. She was a victim of a warrantless search when police officers working off an anonymous tip forcibly entered her home in pursuit of an individual wanted for questioning regarding a bombing. During the illegal search, police officers found pornography, or “lewd and lascivious books and pictures, the possession of which was prohibited” and she was later convicted “on the basis of [that] evidence” (Duignan, 2017). She was initially cleared on a misdemeanor charge, but after she refused to testify against Shondor Birns and other acquaintances, the state sought prosecution for the possession of the pornography found in her home in 1958. Mapp appealed the ruling, claiming not only was the evidence used against her illegally recovered, but the officers never had probable cause to search her home for any reason. The officers indeed had no probable cause to search her home for the pornographic paraphernalia, or even to search for the bombing suspect. The officers were acting based off the anonymous tip from an anonymous informant without any corroboration. Her appeal was finally heard in the Ohio Supreme Court. The court then ruled that although the search was indeed illegal, the conviction was to be upheld on the grounds that were set during the case of Wolf v. Colorado where states were not obligated to follow the Exclusionary Rule. A certiorari was granted shortly thereafter by the United States Supreme Court and arguments began on March 1961. Several months later in June, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ohio court and formally applied the Exclusionary Rule to all states. Through this ruling, the decision of Wolf v. Colorado was overturned as well. Mapp was a known criminal. In fact, more than a decade after escaping conviction, she was sentenced to prison after she was convicted of having “$250,000 worth of stolen good and drugs” in her possession (Kelly, 2017). But the United States Constitution was created to protect all citizens of the United States of America. Even bad people, criminals and felons have rights and are protected from unconstitutional searches and seizures. The Exclusionary Rule applies to all states, but there are exceptions to the rule.
Under the “Good Faith Exception”, if a police officer executes a search warrant that he or she “reasonably believes to be valid but later is determined to be invalid, the officer’s good faith should allow the evidence to be admissible” (Ferdico, 2013, 79). Meaning, if a police officer is working and reasonably believes the search is valid and done without any intentions of an unconstitutional seizure of property, the evidence can and will be admitted even if the warrant is later discovered to be void and invalid. For example, should a police officer encounter an individual on the road fail to come to a complete stop, the officer may stop the violator to cite them. The officer then runs the individual’s identification information and learns they have an arrest warrant out, so the officer in good faith is permitted to lawfully arrest the individual. The officer contemporaneously searches the individual’s vehicle and finds illegal substances. After the arrest and search is made, it is determined the arrest warrant was dismissed, deeming the arrest itself invalid. But, since the officer acted in good faith, and did not knowingly perform an illegal search, the illegal substances found in the vehicle will be admissible evidence when seeking prosecution of possession of an illegal substance. The independent source doctrine states any evidence seized during an unlawful search may still be used if it is later lawfully obtained. Should an officer, for example, illegally enter a home and wish to seize evidence, he gets a search warrant. A search warrant is not signed by a magistrate unless there is probable cause. When the search warrant is received and it is lawful to search the premises in which the officer intruded in, the evidence may be seized and admitted into the court. Attenuation is the weakening of the illegality of a search. The illegality is weakened when the evidence far exceeds the initial violation which in turn allows the evidence to be used during a trial. When evidence is illegally seized, but it is considered to be inevitably discovered lawfully, then it is admissible through the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. For example, if officers arrest a man unlawfully and search a hotel room he was staying at and find a dead body, the evidence may still be admitted because the body would have been inevitably discovered by the hotel’s room service.
The Exclusionary Rule is just as important as the amendment it is covered under. It protects citizens and their right to privacy. No law enforcement officer is lawfully allowed to enter any private domicile and search through belongings. It deters police corruption and misconduct, and therefore increases public trust. Officers are liable to and are punished if they knowingly perform an unconstitutional search and seizure. The rule is used and referred to in just about any court case. Felons and criminals are still protected under the United States Constitution, no matter how heinous the crime they have committed or are being accused of committing. Criminal defense attorneys are entrusted to represent these people and make sure their rights are still protected despite the defendants they represent more than likely deserving of cruel and unusual punishment in some cases. Sometimes, officers may act unlawfully to assist the community they police and incarcerate these criminals. The attorneys are still obligated to protect the rights of all peoples in court and will challenge any evidence illegally obtained using The Exclusionary Rule.
Knowing this rule is enforced, the public trusts the system. There may be rogue officers who may act in their own best interest for the sake of “solving the puzzle” or crime. The people of the United States cherish their liberties granted in this country. Freedom, property and privacy are reasonably expected rights of every citizen, and The Exclusionary Rule protects those rights. Whether guilty of a crime or not, if evidence is obtained unconstitutionally, it may not be admitted in court.