Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.. The law in force at the time of the police action, not the time of the attempt to introduce the evidence, controls whether the action is illegal for exclusionary rule purposes.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as ...
Ohio that the exclusionary rule also applies to state criminal prosecutions under the doctrine of incorporation. In Mapp , the majority gave three rationales for enforcing the exclusionary rule under the Constitution: protecting a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, promoting judicial integrity, and deterring improper searches and seizures.
For example, the exclusionary rule does not apply to certain evidence presented to a grand jury; the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendments cannot be introduced in court. [4] Also, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present in the grand jury room during hearings.
The exclusionary rule generates substantial social costs, which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large." [ 4 ] In United States v. Leon , the Supreme Court clarified that the exclusionary rule "operates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent ...
Ohio, when the exclusionary rule was applied to proceedings in state courts, its imposition was defended as much for its role in protecting judicial integrity as well as deterring unconstitutional investigative practices. "[E]vidence collected in violation of Fourth Amendment limits", Davies recounts, "was so imbued with the potential to smear ...
The exclusionary rule, which restricts admissibility of evidence in court, is also sometimes considered to be a prophylactic rule. [2] The notion of prophylactic rules is controversial. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have argued against them, writing that the ability of judges to create these rules "is an immense ...