Presentation on theme: "Exclusionary Rule Chapter 20.2. Rights of the accused The heart of the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and self incrimination lies."— Presentation transcript:
Rights of the accused The heart of the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and self incrimination lies in this question: if evidence is gathered illegally can this tainted evidence be used in court?
Rights of the accused If the evidence could still be used, what incentives exist for the government to comply with the Constitution If the evidence cant be used, criminals will get away with crimes that the government knows they are guilty of
The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule says that evidence gained as the result of an illegal act by police cannot be used at the trial of the person from whom it was seized.
Weeks v. United States (1914) In this narcotics case, the Court held that evidence obtained illegally by federal officers could not be used in the federal courts. For more than four decades, however, the Court left questions of the use of such evidence in State courts for each State to decide for itself.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) The Court held that the 14 th Amendments Due Process Clause forbids unreasonable searches and seizures by State and local officers just as the 4 th Amendment bars such actions by federal officers. It also held that the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used in the State courts, just as they can not be used in the federal courts.
Narrowing the Scope The Exclusionary Rule has always been controversial. It was intended to put teeth into the 4 th Amendment. Critics of the rule say that it means that some persons who are clearly guilty nonetheless go free. Nix v. Williams (1984), the Courts found an inevitable discovery exception to the rule. United States v. Leon (1984), the Court found a good faith exception to the rule. Arizona v. Evans (1995), the Court held that the good faith exception applied in a case where evidence of a crime was seized by police who acted on the basis of a computer printout that later proved to be false. In Maryland v. Garrison (1987), the Court gave police room for honest mistakes. There, it allowed the use of evidence seized in the mistaken search of an apartment in Baltimore.