What is the main purpose of the exclusionary rule?
The purpose of the rule is to deter law enforcement officers from conducting searches or seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and to provide remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed.
What is the main purpose of the exclusionary rule quizlet?
The main purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter the government (primarily the police) from violating a person’s constitutional rights: If the government cannot use evidence obtained in violation of a person’s rights, it will be less likely to act in contravention of those rights.
What are the main exceptions to the exclusionary rule?
One of the most important exceptions to the exclusionary rule is the exception for tangible evidence. If the police discover tangible evidence based on statements obtained in violation of Miranda, the prosecution may be able to use that evidence against the defendant at trial.
What is the good faith exception and give an example of when it could be used?
For example, a reasonable police officer should be able to determine when a warrant is too vague and will be considered invalid. If they still conduct a search and seizure based on that warrant, the good-faith exception will not cover evidence that they obtain. A defendant can file a motion to suppress that evidence.
What is an example of inevitable discovery?
For example, Alaska has required that the prosecution be able “to prove exactly how” the evidence would have been discovered, and that the defendant would have been asked the exact same questions and would have given the exact same answers.
What is the independent source exception?
In US law, the independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule. The doctrine applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality.
What is the definition of exigent circumstances?
Exigent circumstances – “circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating …
What is attenuation doctrine?
The attenuation doctrine allows evidence to be admitted when the connection between unconstitutional police practice is remote or has been interrupted by an intervening circumstance so that the violation is not served by suppression.
Is the silver platter doctrine still used today?
While the imperative receded in visibility in 1960 with Elkins and the demise of the Fourth Amendment’s “silver platter” doctrine, it remains the case today that agents of one sovereign, when acting independently of those of another, can hand over evidence on a silver platter obtained in contravention of non-federal …
In which of the following cases was the exclusionary rule originated?
In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level.
What happened in Wolf v Colorado?
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment’s right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures.
What happened in the Terry vs Ohio case?
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if …
Did Mapp v Ohio established the exclusionary rule?
Ohio. In 1914, the Supreme Court established the ‘exclusionary rule’ when it held in Weeks v. United States that the federal government could not rely on illegally seized evidence to obtain criminal convictions in federal court.