In the interest of public safety, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and instead, cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished.
In the interest of public safety, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and instead, cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished. I agree with this statement and I believe the rule is not grounded in the Constitution, not a deterrent to police misconduct, and not helpful in the search for truth. The problem is that a person should not have illegal materials in his/her possession to begin with. If a police officer or investigator uncovers these materials in an unconstitutional manner, there is no reason to pretend that the material does not exist. Criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as the exclusionary rule. I, along with many other Americans, am willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.
I disagree with Blair's opinion where she said she believes that the exclusionary rule should be abolished. The exclusionary rule states that if any evidence is collected in a violation of the person's rights under the fourth amendment, it will be excluded from the case, thus, adding protection to the fourth amendment not taking it away. Why should a cop be punished for finding the suspect in their case? They shouldn't. I do not agree that a cop violating this rule should be punished because he or she may have accidentally, in the heat of the moment, wrongfully collected evidence or treated a suspect in an unprofessional way. The fact of the matter is, if someone guilty is seen as a possible suspect in a case, and some evidence is wrongfully collected, and excluded from the prosecution, there is a good chance the police will get a warrant and legally find the evidence needed to back up their suspicions. The exclusionary rule is in no way increasing the amount of crime by letting criminals slip away. If the person is truly guilty, the investigators will prove it. While the exclusionary rule may set back the ability the police have to catch a criminal, they have found ways to work with the law. I do not feel that my safety is in jeopardy because of the exclusionary law.
I agree with Nora. I do not think the exclusionary rule should be abolished nor do I believe that cops should be punished if they fail to use search warrants in the correct manner. It is protected under the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution that protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated." And as a result, it prevents cops from violating rights that were given to citizens within the Constitution. The exclusionary rule is an example of checks and balances which is necessary and fundamental to the way the United States governs. It allows the Court to check the police to make sure that they are properly using the warrant process when trying to find evidence. It also penalizes cops by making it harder to convict criminals using illegally obtained evidence. In addition to my opinion the Head of the Narcotics Section of the Organized Crime Division of the Chicago Police Department agrees with me as well. He stated that he " would not do anything to the exclusionary rule . . . It makes the police department more professional. It enforces appropriate standards of behavior." If police officers simply obey the Constitution, this wouldn't be an issue.
The exclusionary rule should be abolished, and instead policemen who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished. Like Blair previously mentioned, "criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as the exclusionary rule." I agree with her completely on this issue because in some circumstances, viable evidence can be found to pin someone guilty, but cannot be used in court because it did not fall under the catergory the search warrant covered. If the evidence found cannot be used in a court of law, a criminal has the possibility to escape charges and punishment. When and if this scenario occurs, the public is put in greater danger because a criminal can repeat the crime again, furthering endangering the community. Letting a criminal free because the evidence found was discovered "unconstitutionally" is far more detrimental to the public's safety than disobeying or failing to use a search warrant. I as well, also agree with Blair that I am willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a more secure feeling of safety and security in my community.
Policemen should only be punished when they violate search warrants or fail to use them when they do not have sufficient reasoning behind their motives. For instance, if a policeman saw a person walking down a dark alleyway and the policeman thought he "looked" suspicious and searched him, the police officer should be punished for that. However, if a police officer is in the midst of searching a house for evidence and finds other valuable evidence but it is not under the category of the search warrant, that should be allowed because the officer has a sufficient reason.
I agree with Jess and Blair. The exclusionary rule should indeed be abolished simply for public safety. People should not have anything to hide if they are innocent. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should definitely be abolished. Evidence is evidence and no matter which way is found, with a search warrant, should be legitimate for use against the criminal. I also believe that drug testing athletes and searching students lockers (within legitimate reason) should also be allowed. If the athlete or student has not done anything wrong, then what is the problem with searching to prevent further problems? Though, I do believe that search and seizure without a search warrant is wrong, hence the fourth amendment. I agree with both Jess and Blair in that I would too be “willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.”
Like Blair and Jess, I agree that the exclusionary rule should be abolished, and instead cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished. The 4th Amendment is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated." I agree with the statement Blair and Jess both made that criminals all too often find loopholes and escape what they have coming, such as the exclusionary rule. If a policeman uncovers any evidence unlawfully, the evidence found would not be used in court because it was not obtained with a warrant. Like the 'School Searches' debate article states, unlawful findings by policemen are illegal; This debate is an ongoing problem within the court system of the United States. In order to use evidence in any court case, a warrant is necessary unless the evidence found by the police was in plain sight. If the evidence was found by policemen unlawfully, the policemen should then be punished because they have broken not only the law of their country but also their promise to uphold their job and protection of the people. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and the policemen who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished.
I agree with the fact that the exclusionary rule should be abolished. Blair made a great point about criminals often escaping justice through loopholes such as the exclusionary rule. I totally disagree with Nora's statement that, "If the person is truly guilty, the investigators will prove it." This is not always the case. Many people who are guilty of a crime sometimes get away with it. I have seen examples of the exclusionary rule coming into play in the t.v series C.S.I Miami. Very often on the show the investigators collect evidence in the wrong way. Way they go to court this is used against them and the evidence is ruled out. The criminal gets off and then goes and commits more crimes. I know this is a t.v show however this could be a possible scenario in real life. To have an equal balance I think police officers should be punished if they violate a search warrant or fail to use them. Therefore if they get punished once they will not be tempted to search for evidence in a manner that will infringe upon someone's constitutional rights the second time around.
The exclusionary rule, which permits evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be trashed, should not be abolished in the United States. The rescinding of this rule would essentially make the Fourth Amendment, a key portion of the Bill of Rights and a declaration of fundamental individual liberties, irrelevant. As Americans, it is absolutely critical that Constitutional protections entitled to us in the Bill of Rights not only be promoted but actually applied and protected in the realm of law and justice. In the United States, the Bill of Rights exists for the purposes of ensuring sacred personal freedoms that have allowed this country to prosper. If the Fourth Amendment, which is a critical element of the Constitution, the supreme LAW of the land, is not enforced and recognized by LAW ENFORCEMENT officials, it is essentially meaningless. Law enforcement must enforce the law, and given that the suupreme law of the land is the United States Constitution which includes the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable search and seizure" should not be undertaken and should be recognized - and even protected - by law enforcement. Any evidence found by law enforcement through methods that violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which is the law, should not be used in a court against an individual. Such evidence would have been found unconstitutionally, and thus, unlawfully, by law enforcement, who must ENFORCE the law that is the Constitution, rather than skirt it by uncovering evidence found in violation of stated American liberties. If we were to abolish the exclusionary role and allow law enforcement to, in effect, not enforce the law of no "unreasonable search and seizure," we would be one step closer to the kind of absuive government that America has always sought to avoid becoming. This nation rebelled against and defeated a monarchy that used vice-admiralty courts, approved the clearly anti-privacy Quatering Act, and took pride in trampling on individual liberties. We should never go in that direction. We should not even go in this direction in times such as this, when we face threats that often cause us to second guess civil liberties.
Of course, Blair states that she is "willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security." Such a sentiment immediately brought to mind for me a quote from founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, always an embracer of democratic principles, wisely opined, "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither." These words ought to be recalled in this debate.
I agree with the majority of the class in saying that the exclusionary rule should be abolished. If someone is suspect to a crime and there is evidence to prove a person is guilty then the evidence should be considered valid no matter how it was discovered. For the safety of all people it is important that if someone is guilty of a crime they should be punished for it no matter how the evidence is obtained. If a person is guilty and there is evidence to prove that fact then they should be charged with that crime. There is no excuse for breaking the law and often times criminals can be a danger to others if they are not brought to justice. I agree with Jess, Sunny, and Blair in saying that i would be willing to sacrifice some rights in order to feel safe. Searches and siezures should not be at random and there should always be reason behind suspicion and investigation.
I agree with those who say that the exclusionary rule should be abolished, as it is an impediment to prosecuting known criminals. Abolishment of this rule would enable police officers to investigate suspicious activities without having to worry about whether or not their evidence would be valid in a court of law. On the other hand, there would also be punishments for those officers who violate their search warrants, so you should not have an abuse of the power to search homes. In recent years, this issue has become even more controversial as citizens' are forced to choose between security agianst terrorism and their Constitutional rights. However, I would say that their constitutional rights are not being infringed upon by abolishing the exclusionary rule. While this Amendment protects against "unlawful search and seizure", there is no definition of what is considered unlawful. The fourth amendment only states that there must be a warrant in order to search private property. I am not suggesting that police officers should be able to search homes without warrants; I am only suggesting that should a police officer enter a home with a warrant they consider to be valid and then discover incriminating evidence that does not relate to their warrent, it is still fair and constitutional for this evidence to be used in a court of law.
I agree with Tess and Nora's opinion that the exclusionary rule should not be abolished, nor should cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them be punished. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. If cops wish to obtain evidence for a case, they need to obey this law. If the evidence has been obtained unlawfully and in a manner that violates the rights of the citizen, the evidence should be excluded from the case. It would not be right for cops to break the law in order to obtain evidence that would prove that a citizen has broken the law. If a cop's belief that a person has evidence that they need to collect is truly reasonable, then they should have no problem convincing a judge of that and obtaining a search warrant. If this rule is not abolished, there is no need to punish cops for violating search warrants or failing to use them because they will already be punished through the exclusion of the evidence they obtain unlawfully. In any case, I also agree with Nora's opinion that cops shouldn't be punished for violating search warrants or failing to use them. Though cops should be following the law, they shouldn't be punished for being passionate about making sure that justice has been served.
I believe that the exclusionary rule should be abolished.I agree with Joey that there should be a balance in between. That if police uncovers illegal materials in a unconstitutional manner, they should have the right to use that in a case and should not choose to ignore the evidence just because it's found in a unconstitutional manner. Regardless how evidence is found, guilty is guilty no matter what. On the other hand, I think to limit the police's power, if police attempts to find evidence in a unconstitutional manner and fails to find anything that is illegal, then the police should be punished in some way. The only way to catch the "good" criminals is to catch them off guard, and to do that, police should have the right to do so at their own risk. To protect and lessen the criminal activities, this is essential.
I agree with Jaja. The exclusionary rule must be abolished because it is standing in the way of the prosecution of criminals. While it is unconstitutional, due to the 4th amendment, for the police to obtain evidence without a warrant, the fact that the evidence exists in undeniable. Should a police officer attempt to obtain evidence illegally, however, I believe that officer should be punished for violation of the fourth amendment. With these guidelines set, police would be discouraged to obtain evidence illegally, but if the evidence was found in some illegal way it would still be usable.
While some may argue that they may feel violated by an illegal search and/or seizure I would ask this question: Why would the police violate your rights if they did not have probable cause to believe that you were involved in some criminal action? The police do not invade the homes of innocent citizens to scramble through their belongings for leisure. The police in the vast majority if not all of these cases have some reason to believe that the person whose belongings are being searched has some involvement in a crime. If this is the case, through their criminal actions they have violated the law of the land, and therefore, should not be provided with the same security and protection provided by the fourth amendment as law abiding citizens.
The exclusionary law should not be abolished. Without this law, the police would be able to abuse their power of an unwarranted search and seizure in addition to the fact this law is protected under the fourth amendment of the constitution.
For example, in the Weeks v. United States case (1914), police found lottery tickets in his mail box. Weeks was prosecuted for the illegal transport of gambling items. Before the trial, Weeks had asked if the items taken from his home during the unwarranted search could be returned from him- they were not. The court ruled in favor Weeks stating that " if letters and private documents can be thus seized and used as evidence, his right to be secure against such searches, is of no value and might as well be stricken from the Constitution."
Weeks attorney argued that the fourth amendment says that people are safe from unwarranted search and seizures and if this law is not enforced, then the language of the fourth amendment is meaningless.
Additionally, This case shows that the fourth amendment gives protection to all American citizens (both innocent and those who could potentially be convicted of a crime). I do not believe that police should be punished for an unwarranted search. However, I do believe that if the courts allowed police to obtain evidence without a warrant there would no longer be a system of checks and balances between the courts and law enforcement.
14 comments:
In the interest of public safety, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and instead, cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished. I agree with this statement and I believe the rule is not grounded in the Constitution, not a deterrent to police misconduct, and not helpful in the search for truth. The problem is that a person should not have illegal materials in his/her possession to begin with. If a police officer or investigator uncovers these materials in an unconstitutional manner, there is no reason to pretend that the material does not exist. Criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as the exclusionary rule. I, along with many other Americans, am willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.
I disagree with Blair's opinion where she said she believes that the exclusionary rule should be abolished. The exclusionary rule states that if any evidence is collected in a violation of the person's rights under the fourth amendment, it will be excluded from the case, thus, adding protection to the fourth amendment not taking it away. Why should a cop be punished for finding the suspect in their case? They shouldn't. I do not agree that a cop violating this rule should be punished because he or she may have accidentally, in the heat of the moment, wrongfully collected evidence or treated a suspect in an unprofessional way. The fact of the matter is, if someone guilty is seen as a possible suspect in a case, and some evidence is wrongfully collected, and excluded from the prosecution, there is a good chance the police will get a warrant and legally find the evidence needed to back up their suspicions. The exclusionary rule is in no way increasing the amount of crime by letting criminals slip away. If the person is truly guilty, the investigators will prove it. While the exclusionary rule may set back the ability the police have to catch a criminal, they have found ways to work with the law. I do not feel that my safety is in jeopardy because of the exclusionary law.
I agree with Nora. I do not think the exclusionary rule should be abolished nor do I believe that cops should be punished if they fail to use search warrants in the correct manner. It is protected under the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution that protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated." And as a result, it prevents cops from violating rights that were given to citizens within the Constitution. The exclusionary rule is an example of checks and balances which is necessary and fundamental to the way the United States governs. It allows the Court to check the police to make sure that they are properly using the warrant process when trying to find evidence. It also penalizes cops by making it harder to convict criminals using illegally obtained evidence. In addition to my opinion the Head of the Narcotics Section of the Organized Crime Division of the Chicago Police Department agrees with me as well. He stated that he " would not do anything to the exclusionary rule . . . It makes the police department more professional. It enforces appropriate standards of behavior." If police officers simply obey the Constitution, this wouldn't be an issue.
The exclusionary rule should be abolished, and instead policemen who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished. Like Blair previously mentioned, "criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as the exclusionary rule." I agree with her completely on this issue because in some circumstances, viable evidence can be found to pin someone guilty, but cannot be used in court because it did not fall under the catergory the search warrant covered. If the evidence found cannot be used in a court of law, a criminal has the possibility to escape charges and punishment. When and if this scenario occurs, the public is put in greater danger because a criminal can repeat the crime again, furthering endangering the community. Letting a criminal free because the evidence found was discovered "unconstitutionally" is far more detrimental to the public's safety than disobeying or failing to use a search warrant. I as well, also agree with Blair that I am willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a more secure feeling of safety and security in my community.
Policemen should only be punished when they violate search warrants or fail to use them when they do not have sufficient reasoning behind their motives. For instance, if a policeman saw a person walking down a dark alleyway and the policeman thought he "looked" suspicious and searched him, the police officer should be punished for that. However, if a police officer is in the midst of searching a house for evidence and finds other valuable evidence but it is not under the category of the search warrant, that should be allowed because the officer has a sufficient reason.
I agree with Jess and Blair. The exclusionary rule should indeed be abolished simply for public safety. People should not have anything to hide if they are innocent. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should definitely be abolished. Evidence is evidence and no matter which way is found, with a search warrant, should be legitimate for use against the criminal. I also believe that drug testing athletes and searching students lockers (within legitimate reason) should also be allowed. If the athlete or student has not done anything wrong, then what is the problem with searching to prevent further problems? Though, I do believe that search and seizure without a search warrant is wrong, hence the fourth amendment. I agree with both Jess and Blair in that I would too be “willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.”
Like Blair and Jess, I agree that the exclusionary rule should be abolished, and instead cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished. The 4th Amendment is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures should not be violated." I agree with the statement Blair and Jess both made that criminals all too often find loopholes and escape what they have coming, such as the exclusionary rule. If a policeman uncovers any evidence unlawfully, the evidence found would not be used in court because it was not obtained with a warrant. Like the 'School Searches' debate article states, unlawful findings by policemen are illegal; This debate is an ongoing problem within the court system of the United States. In order to use evidence in any court case, a warrant is necessary unless the evidence found by the police was in plain sight. If the evidence was found by policemen unlawfully, the policemen should then be punished because they have broken not only the law of their country but also their promise to uphold their job and protection of the people. Therefore, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and the policemen who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished.
I agree with the fact that the exclusionary rule should be abolished. Blair made a great point about criminals often escaping justice through loopholes such as the exclusionary rule. I totally disagree with Nora's statement that, "If the person is truly guilty, the investigators will prove it." This is not always the case. Many people who are guilty of a crime sometimes get away with it. I have seen examples of the exclusionary rule coming into play in the t.v series C.S.I Miami. Very often on the show the investigators collect evidence in the wrong way. Way they go to court this is used against them and the evidence is ruled out. The criminal gets off and then goes and commits more crimes. I know this is a t.v show however this could be a possible scenario in real life. To have an equal balance I think police officers should be punished if they violate a search warrant or fail to use them. Therefore if they get punished once they will not be tempted to search for evidence in a manner that will infringe upon someone's constitutional rights the second time around.
The exclusionary rule, which permits evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment to be trashed, should not be abolished in the United States. The rescinding of this rule would essentially make the Fourth Amendment, a key portion of the Bill of Rights and a declaration of fundamental individual liberties, irrelevant. As Americans, it is absolutely critical that Constitutional protections entitled to us in the Bill of Rights not only be promoted but actually applied and protected in the realm of law and justice. In the United States, the Bill of Rights exists for the purposes of ensuring sacred personal freedoms that have allowed this country to prosper. If the Fourth Amendment, which is a critical element of the Constitution, the supreme LAW of the land, is not enforced and recognized by LAW ENFORCEMENT officials, it is essentially meaningless. Law enforcement must enforce the law, and given that the suupreme law of the land is the United States Constitution which includes the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable search and seizure" should not be undertaken and should be recognized - and even protected - by law enforcement. Any evidence found by law enforcement through methods that violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which is the law, should not be used in a court against an individual. Such evidence would have been found unconstitutionally, and thus, unlawfully, by law enforcement, who must ENFORCE the law that is the Constitution, rather than skirt it by uncovering evidence found in violation of stated American liberties. If we were to abolish the exclusionary role and allow law enforcement to, in effect, not enforce the law of no "unreasonable search and seizure," we would be one step closer to the kind of absuive government that America has always sought to avoid becoming. This nation rebelled against and defeated a monarchy that used vice-admiralty courts, approved the clearly anti-privacy Quatering Act, and took pride in trampling on individual liberties. We should never go in that direction. We should not even go in this direction in times such as this, when we face threats that often cause us to second guess civil liberties.
Of course, Blair states that she is "willing to sacrifice some Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security." Such a sentiment immediately brought to mind for me a quote from founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, always an embracer of democratic principles, wisely opined, "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither." These words ought to be recalled in this debate.
I agree with the majority of the class in saying that the exclusionary rule should be abolished. If someone is suspect to a crime and there is evidence to prove a person is guilty then the evidence should be considered valid no matter how it was discovered. For the safety of all people it is important that if someone is guilty of a crime they should be punished for it no matter how the evidence is obtained. If a person is guilty and there is evidence to prove that fact then they should be charged with that crime. There is no excuse for breaking the law and often times criminals can be a danger to others if they are not brought to justice. I agree with Jess, Sunny, and Blair in saying that i would be willing to sacrifice some rights in order to feel safe. Searches and siezures should not be at random and there should always be reason behind suspicion and investigation.
I agree with those who say that the exclusionary rule should be abolished, as it is an impediment to prosecuting known criminals. Abolishment of this rule would enable police officers to investigate suspicious activities without having to worry about whether or not their evidence would be valid in a court of law. On the other hand, there would also be punishments for those officers who violate their search warrants, so you should not have an abuse of the power to search homes.
In recent years, this issue has become even more controversial as citizens' are forced to choose between security agianst terrorism and their Constitutional rights. However, I would say that their constitutional rights are not being infringed upon by abolishing the exclusionary rule. While this Amendment protects against "unlawful search and seizure", there is no definition of what is considered unlawful. The fourth amendment only states that there must be a warrant in order to search private property.
I am not suggesting that police officers should be able to search homes without warrants; I am only suggesting that should a police officer enter a home with a warrant they consider to be valid and then discover incriminating evidence that does not relate to their warrent, it is still fair and constitutional for this evidence to be used in a court of law.
I agree with Tess and Nora's opinion that the exclusionary rule should not be abolished, nor should cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them be punished. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. If cops wish to obtain evidence for a case, they need to obey this law. If the evidence has been obtained unlawfully and in a manner that violates the rights of the citizen, the evidence should be excluded from the case. It would not be right for cops to break the law in order to obtain evidence that would prove that a citizen has broken the law. If a cop's belief that a person has evidence that they need to collect is truly reasonable, then they should have no problem convincing a judge of that and obtaining a search warrant. If this rule is not abolished, there is no need to punish cops for violating search warrants or failing to use them because they will already be punished through the exclusion of the evidence they obtain unlawfully. In any case, I also agree with Nora's opinion that cops shouldn't be punished for violating search warrants or failing to use them. Though cops should be following the law, they shouldn't be punished for being passionate about making sure that justice has been served.
I believe that the exclusionary rule should be abolished.I agree with Joey that there should be a balance in between. That if police uncovers illegal materials in a unconstitutional manner, they should have the right to use that in a case and should not choose to ignore the evidence just because it's found in a unconstitutional manner. Regardless how evidence is found, guilty is guilty no matter what. On the other hand, I think to limit the police's power, if police attempts to find evidence in a unconstitutional manner and fails to find anything that is illegal, then the police should be punished in some way. The only way to catch the "good" criminals is to catch them off guard, and to do that, police should have the right to do so at their own risk. To protect and lessen the criminal activities, this is essential.
I agree with Jaja. The exclusionary rule must be abolished because it is standing in the way of the prosecution of criminals. While it is unconstitutional, due to the 4th amendment, for the police to obtain evidence without a warrant, the fact that the evidence exists in undeniable. Should a police officer attempt to obtain evidence illegally, however, I believe that officer should be punished for violation of the fourth amendment. With these guidelines set, police would be discouraged to obtain evidence illegally, but if the evidence was found in some illegal way it would still be usable.
While some may argue that they may feel violated by an illegal search and/or seizure I would ask this question: Why would the police violate your rights if they did not have probable cause to believe that you were involved in some criminal action? The police do not invade the homes of innocent citizens to scramble through their belongings for leisure. The police in the vast majority if not all of these cases have some reason to believe that the person whose belongings are being searched has some involvement in a crime. If this is the case, through their criminal actions they have violated the law of the land, and therefore, should not be provided with the same security and protection provided by the fourth amendment as law abiding citizens.
The exclusionary law should not be abolished. Without this law, the police would be able to abuse their power of an unwarranted search and seizure in addition to the fact this law is protected under the fourth amendment of the constitution.
For example, in the Weeks v. United States case (1914), police found lottery tickets in his mail box. Weeks was prosecuted for the illegal transport of gambling items. Before the trial, Weeks had asked if the items taken from his home during the unwarranted search could be returned from him- they were not. The court ruled in favor Weeks stating that " if letters and private documents can be thus seized and used as evidence, his right to be secure against such searches, is of no value and might as well be stricken from the Constitution."
Weeks attorney argued that the fourth amendment says that people are safe from unwarranted search and seizures and if this law is not enforced, then the language of the fourth amendment is meaningless.
Additionally, This case shows that the fourth amendment gives protection to all American citizens (both innocent and those who could potentially be convicted of a crime). I do not believe that police should be punished for an unwarranted search. However, I do believe that if the courts allowed police to obtain evidence without a warrant there would no longer be a system of checks and balances between the courts and law enforcement.
Post a Comment