A controversial issue revolving around the Supreme Court's control of police behavior is what is commonly known as the exclusionary rule. Summarize the basics of this rule and discuss its current status and controversy.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in criminal trials and also excludes use of illegal confessions under the Fifth Amendment. This rule was established in 1914 by the US Supreme court in Weeks v. US, and the 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio expanded the exclusionary rule so that it applied to state cases and not just the federal level. Currently, when the rule applies, valuable evidence may not be usable at trial because police made an error or failed to obtain a proper warrant. The controversy is that criminals can go free due to these errors or police might intentionally make errors to exclude the evidence. Others argue that it can result in excessive court delays and negatively affect plea bargaining. In truth, the exclusionary rule is rarely applied to cases, and prosecutions are lost due to the exclusionary rule only about 1 percent of the time. Recently, the Supreme Court has been limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule through the good faith exception, which says evidence is admissible if the police officers acted in good faith by first obtaining approval from the court even if the warrant they received was deficient or faulty. This could cause further controversy from advocates who say that the good faith exception is impeding people's Fourth Amendment rights.