In the United States, law enforcement officers were found to unlawfully arrest people without proper evidence of the crime they committed. Exclusionary rule was developed to curb this problem of police officers extorting money unlawfully from the public in the form of bribes.
Definition of the exclusionary rule
According to Federal Constitutional Law, evidence that was illegally obtained by the police and that violate the rights of a suspected person to be free from apprehension and searches which is not reasonable.
Fourth Amendment Rights are; People’s right to be secure in persons, papers, houses and effects, against unfair seizures and searches, people’s rights will not be violated, warrants will only be issued when need arises, support by affirmation or Oath and giving a description of the place to be investigated and things or persons to be apprehended (Kamisar, page 26).
Fourth amendment rights have further created a government system where the rule of law is supreme (Glasser, page 35). Under the rule of law, the police are guided by laws and principles that make the legal system of the U.S and not their own personal undertaings. This has reduced corruption by the police. No policeman can intimidate the citizens by claiming that he has done a mistake while in due sense he wanted to be bribed so as to leave the innocent citizen. Between the authority and power, a distinction is also drawn. The police are given powers in the United States to conduct investigations, arrest and use force occasionally in the line of their duty. But, these powers should be exercised according to how the law prescribes without deviating from it.
Exclusionary development through Weeks v. United States case
In this case, an agent of Federal government conducted a warrant less search for gambling evidence in Freemont Weeks home. The evidence got by the agent in the search was used during the trial which lead to conviction of Weeks. On appeal, the Court ordered that Fourth Amendment did not allow the use of warrantless search evidences. This lead to the reversing of Weeks’s conviction. Exclusionary rule development came into being. The Agent had conducted a warrant-less search which the fourth amendment was against (Calabresi, page 45).
Exclusionary development in Mapp v. Ohio case
According to this case, Cleveland Police Officers went to the residence of Dollree Mapp to ask her questions concerning bombings that had occurred recently. The officers ordered that they be allowed into the house. Mapp contacted her attorney and declined to let the authorities in devoid of a warrant. The officers got annoyed with her, tied her hands and searched her house. They found pictures, books and photographs that alleged obscenity. Obscenity is a term used to describe anything offensive to morality. Mapp, being charged with violating obscenity laws, was prosecuted, convicted and given a seven-year sentence but the Supreme Court rejected it. This was because the defendant claimed that she was unreasonably searched and seized which was the violation of the fourth amendment.
Exclusionary development in Wolf v. Colorado case
According to this case the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the conviction. In the trial, it was realized that the evidence was illegally seized. Fourth Amendment does not accept illegally seized evidences to be used in the trial. Wolf was convicted of performing criminal abortions. When he appealed, his conviction was reversed. The evidence used was obtained illegally.