1. 1. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained illegally may not be used a
ID: 431168 • Letter: 1
Question
1. 1. Under the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained illegally may not be used at trial. The Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule to ensure that police conduct legal searches.
a. Does it make sense to exclude legitimate evidence because a police officer made a mistake in getting a warrant? This could allow the criminal go free because the constable blundered?
b. Does the Supreme Court think that all police want to abuse the average citizen?
c. The difference between a lawful search or arrest and an unlawful one is often a warrant. What is so special about a warrant and/or the warrant requirement.?
d. What might happen if there was no requirement for probable cause?
e. What is wrong with being searched if you don't have anything to hide?
f. What percentage (approximate) of people go free because of the exclusionary rule? Why?
Explanation / Answer
a. No, it does not make sense to exclude legitimate evidence because a police officer made a mistake in getting a warrant as the exclusionary rule tells not to include the evidence obtained illegally and not to ignore the legal evidence which may or may done by mistake by anyone. Yes, this may allow criminal to go free because the constable blundered as the legal evidence is missing which may be against the criminal and he may be penalised for the same by the court.
b. No, Supreme Court does not think that all police want to abuse the average citizen just based on one the evidence received against the police. The Supreme Court can think that if in most of the cases and scenarios, this type of mistake is caused by the police personnel.
c. The lawful search is also known as the search incident under which police has power to perform warrantless search of an arrested person but under unlawful search or arrest that is also known as warrant is authorised by a legal or government official in which police can search a place or premises and make an arrest. A warrant is generally a legal document issued by the legal or government and it helps the police to take an appropriate action against the convict abiding by the rules and regulation.
d. If there was no requirement for probable cause, then that may become a threat to the citizen and policy can take advantage of the situation and the case and people might have misused the law and general citizen could have been harmed by the police and wrong people and there would been lot of chaos.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.