In the USA, a criminal procedure rule which prevents certain kinds of evidence from being used against a defendant in court: evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. It was adopted by the US Supreme Court in federal cases in Weeks v. US (1914) and extended to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). This case signalled a new era, begun under Chief Justice Earl Warren, of applying provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states to the same extent as they apply to the federal government. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, but it has proved controversial, as obviously guilty defendants have been released on what many view as technicalities. This has given rise to exceptions such as good faith of the police (eg where a non-critical detail on a search warrant has been incorrectly filled out) and exigent circumstances (eg hot pursuit of an armed felon into a house without a search warrant), based on the reasoning that in these circumstances there is no deliberate police misconduct to be deterred. England and Wales have no exclusionary rule as such, but judges must exclude confessions obtained through oppression, threat, or force, and have discretion to exclude evidence that is considered oppressive or unfair, including illegally obtained evidence.
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Criminal trials and convictions |
| Rights of the accused |
| Right to a fair trial · Speedy trial |
| Jury trial · Presumption of innocence |
| Exclusionary rule (U.S.) |
| Self-incrimination · Double jeopardy |
| Verdict |
| Acquittal · Conviction |
| Not proven (Scot.) · Directed verdict |
| Sentencing |
| Mandatory · Suspended · Custodial |
| Dangerous offender (Can.) |
| Capital punishment · Execution warrant |
| Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Post-conviction events |
| Parole · Probation |
| Tariff (UK) · Life licence (UK) |
| Miscarriage of justice |
| Exoneration · Pardon |
| Related areas of law |
| Criminal defenses |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
| Civil procedure |
| Portals: Law · Criminal justice |
In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial).
The Exclusionary Rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, for prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which provide for protection from unreasonable searches and seizure and compelled self-incrimination.
History of the Rule
The exclusionary rule was created in 1914 in the case of Weeks v.
Limitations of the Rule
The exclusionary rule does not apply in a civil case, in a grand jury proceeding, or in a parole revocation hearing.
Even in a standard criminal case, the Exclusionary Rule does not simply bar the introduction of all evidence obtained from all violations of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments. 04-1360 (June 15, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote
Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse.
The Court in Hudson further held that a search whose only illegality is the failure to announce cannot uncover any evidence that would not have been uncovered if the announcement had been properly made, and therefore the suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy.
Exceptions to the Rule
Even when the Exclusionary Rule does apply, the rule excludes the illegally obtained evidence only on the issue of the defendant's guilt for the particular crime charged.
The inevitable discovery doctrine is a direct exception to the exclusionary rule, in that it allows the admission of evidence on the issue of the defendant's guilt where the evidence would otherwise have been excluded. It holds that evidence obtained through an unlawful search or seizure is admissible in court if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence. This decision was upheld because given the fact that the exclusionary rule was created specifically to deter police and state misconduct, excluding evidence that would inevitably (hypothetically) have been discovered otherwise would not serve to deter police misconduct. Stith, the Court stated that this doctrine may not be used to admit primary evidence but only secondary evidence, i.e. evidence found as a result of the primary evidence.
The attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is that evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence.
The independent source exception allows evidence to be admitted in court if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate, or independent, source that is completely unrelated to the illegality at hand.
User Comments Add a comment…