Liberty Ohio
Is the exclusionary rule good public policy?
The exclusionary rule, which dictates that evidence found in violation of a defendant's 4th Amendment rights, is hardly uncontroversial. It's application often results in guilty parties going free. On the other hand, perhaps it can be justified because it deters police infrigements on privacy, and thereby protects our liberty.
Resolve this problem below. For reference, see Mapp v. Ohio, Wolf v. Colorado and progeny.
No this is not an exam question. I am a law student/buff interested in what people have to say. And I am aware of the numerous exceptions to this rule, but for the purposes of this answer, assume that evidence collected in violation of a defendant's 4th Amendment rights will always be excluded.
This is a case of two wrong supposedly making a right. The criminal did wrong. The police did wrong. Therefore the evidence against the criminal is thrown out and if that was needed to convict him, he gets to walk.
Its intent was to keep the cops honest and protect the individuals fourth amendment rights. However, I feel the rule is wrong.
There are TWO violations of the law. If evidence is found proving the criminal is guilty, it should be allowed. If the evidence was gotten illegally and in violation of the Fourth Amendment, then the person who did it should ALSO be punished.
Example. A man murders a child and buries the body. There is a lot of suspicion but no proof. One cop wiretaps the man's phone without a court order and gets a conversation on tape of the man saying where he buried the body. They go look and find the body and arrest the man. Now, with the rule in place, the man gets to go free unless they find other evidence not connected to the wiretap.
Get rid of the rule. Now the child killer goes to prison. As for the cop, he gets tried for illegal wiretaps and he also goes to prison. Since the survival rate of cops in prisons is not so hot, most cops would try their best not to do anything illegal in their pursuit of justice.