Throughout history, we have witnessed various forms of injustice aimed at citizens who do not know their rights and government officials who exploit the system. For this reason, a law is now in effect that prevents the government from using most evidence collected in violation of the United States Constitution. The exclusionary rule is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence during a criminal trial designed to deter police misconduct. The exclusionary rule allows courts to exclude the introduction of incriminating evidence at trial if it is demonstrated that the evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional provision. There are three main cases where all of this originated: Weeks v. US, Wolf v. Colorado and Mapp v. Ohio. Each of these Supreme Court cases played a defining role in how the criminal justice system works today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To properly understand the relevance of these Supreme Court cases, it is essential to have a solid understanding of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, added to the Constitution in 1791 to protect the American people from unlawful searches and seizures, meaning that government officials cannot search your person or home without first having a warrant or probable cause as basis. , thus ensuring an additional level of safety among the public. The ultimate goal of this provision is to safeguard people's right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government (Smentkowski,2019). However, the fourth amendment does not provide protection from all searches and seizures, but only from those conducted by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim Fourth Amendment infringement as a basis for suppressing relevant evidence, the court has long needed the applicant to demonstrate that he or she is the victim of an invasion of privacy to have strong standing to assert protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from that requirement, the question of exclusion must be resolved solely after resolution of the substantive question of whether or not the appellant's Fourth Amendment rights are desecrated, which subsequently requires the appellant to demonstrate an excusable expectation of privacy, which has been profaned by the government willy-nilly. Generally, most unwarranted searches of personal premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless a specific exception applies. For example, a search without a warrant is also lawful if a political candidate has requested and obtained consent to carry out the search; if the search concerns a lawful arrest; if there is evidence to be searched and there are exigent circumstances for the occupation for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist everywhere in a scenario where individuals are faced with imminent danger, wherever evidence is imminently destroyed or prior to a suspect's imminent escape. Along with the Fourth Amendment are other factors that are equally important to understanding the exclusionary rule in its broadest form. full capacity. While laws have been enacted to protect the American people, there are still regulations that laws must adhere to. In this case there are seven exceptions to the exclusion rule. The rule of unavoidable discovery: which includes but is not limited to evidence that would have been discovered by legal means. The doctrine of the sourceindependent: where evidence is encountered through an illegal search, but subsequently discovered independently of events through the search. Knock and Announce: This rule applies when an officer is exercising the search warrant and he or she generally does not forcefully enter the home, but knocks and identifies himself, waiting for a response for a reasonable time. Mitigation Principle: The evidence can be used if the relationship between the evidence and the illegitimate method by which it was acquired is remote and attenuated. Good Faith Exception: Includes officers who had a reasonable "good faith" belief that they were acting in compliance with the justice system, such as using a warrant that later turned out to be unreliable. Isolated police negligence: This does not always trigger the exclusionary rule but is applied when there has been deliberate misconduct and actions by the police. Identification in Court: A witness can make an identification in court despite prior wrongdoing. Weeks v. US was the first case that essentially created the basis for the exclusion rule. The case includes a man named Fremont Weeks, who was known for carrying lottery tickets through the mail, which was in direct violation of the criminal code (Reed 2019). Law enforcement proceeded to arrest Weeks and search his office, which led to his conviction due to the evidence found. After Weeks' conviction, he appealed, arguing that the law had violated the Bill of Rights. He believed he had the right to be protected from illegal acts that go against his birthrights in America, such as search and seizure (Duignan, 2019). The justices of the United States Supreme Court all agreed that the search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is where we see the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” metaphor created in reference to contaminated evidence. Furthermore, in the case Wolf v. Colorado, the lawyer in this case was guilty by a state court of colluding with black market abortion. The petitioner appealed arguing that his constitutional right to be free from improper searches and seizures has been desecrated and any evidence used against him has desecrated the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that class actions are not denied once evidence obtained through black market search and seizure is admitted in a state court for a state crime. As a result of Weeks and Wolf, varieties of the rule of evidence existed in many states for several decades. In 1961, however, the rule was expanded nationwide and gained quality among criminal defendants as a possible defense. All this happened after the defendants (Cleveland Police) forced their way into the house. Although officers did not find the suspect, they did find some books and images that fell under the pornographic category and are illegal in Ohio (Duignan, 2019). Mapp was convicted of breaking the law based on this evidence. Hearing the case on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the search was unlawful but proceeded to convict on the basis that states were not required to comply with the exclusionary rule. On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court took it upon itself to reverse the Ohio court's decision and rule that the Fourth Amendment protects against “police incursions on privacy” (Duignam 2019). The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately voted six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp. I'm in a relationship with a drug dealer and we live together. Neighbors called about a marijuana smell coming from our yard and forstrange machines that showed up at our house. The following week two police officers knocked on the door asking for Jose Duarte (my boyfriend). They say they have a warrant to enter the home and search for illegal substances. When asked to see the warrant, the police officers gave up the document but never allowed us to see it. As they walk through the house looking through every nook and cranny, they come across our room and closet where they find a jar with 4 ounces of marijuana inside. The officers proceed to arrest my boyfriend and charge him with possession. His mother and I are looking for the best lawyer money can buy to get Jose out as soon as possible. Thanks to word of mouth from some family friends, we finally find a noteworthy lawyer, Michael Aaronson. After I explained what had happened from my perspective, he continually interrupted me to ask me questions that I now know were a key part of his process. Our lawyer finished listening to everything I explained to her and continued to tell me what she could do for Jose. Attorney Aaronson began to explain that the police officers had overstepped their bounds and informed me that we have a case against the State. Once Jose Duarte's trial date arrived, we were ready to receive justice. The judge let one of the two officers speak before Jose's lawyer introduced his client. The police officer explained that he had received numerous calls and tipsters expressing concern. These informants explained a smell of marijuana and strange vehicles engaged with Duarte. Aaronson asked the officer if they had any other reason to search the house other than those of the informants and they replied "No", and when asked if they had a warrant to search the entire property, they said it had been specified at the garage agent. Aaronson went on to state that the two officers were violating the Fourth Amendment because they did not produce the warrant upon request and did not search the entire home instead of what was specified on the warrant. This is where the exclusionary rule comes into play because they searched the entire house and the officers found marijuana, but in a way that goes directly against the Constitution and the rights of American citizens. Now without the drugs they found they have no case. All they have left without the marijuana are a few complaints from neighbors, not a real cause or proof. Once the marijuana has been thrown out, only one man remains arrested by the police. Through the eyes I have experienced I would say that the exclusionary rule is a safety net for all the shameful acts that happen behind closed doors in the criminal justice system. In the event that those selected to serve and protect do just the opposite, the government has created a clause for the public to defend themselves. I think this rule is the most hypocritical you can imagine. For one thing, the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 but, more than one hundred and twenty years later, we still see the system breaking down and the need to add a law to clarify. Although Weeks was well known for carrying lottery tickets, the system cannot act unfairly, ultimately there is still a process that must be followed regardless. This is why the system is in place, not only to maintain rules and order, but another reason why our officials do not take responsibility for handling situations on their terms that lead to bad outcomes or cases that backfire. The exclusionary rule is that evidence of wrongdoing is needed for someone to conduct a search and potential seizure. Although this is not the place of.