John L. Worrall’s Criminal Procedure (Justice Series) chapter 12 examines the exclusionary rule, which bars unconstitutional evidence from criminal prosecutions. The chapter discusses the exclusionary rule, its use in modern criminal prosecutions, and its objections and difficulties. Chapter 12 will be summarized in this essay. The essay will first discuss the exclusionary rule’s history and exceptions. Then, the article will analyze how the judiciary enforces the regulation and how it may affect law enforcement. Finally, the exclusionary rule’s objections and possible alternatives to police wrongdoing and individual rights will be examined.
John L. Worrall’s Criminal Procedure (Justice Series) discusses the exclusionary rule in Chapter 12. The chapter discusses the exclusionary rule, its use in modern criminal prosecutions, and its objections and difficulties. In 1914, Weeks v. United States created the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 extended the norm to state criminal proceedings. The exclusionary rule, including the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule, is then explained. The chapter also discusses exclusionary rule exceptions that allow unconstitutional evidence to be used. The good faith and inevitable discovery exceptions allow law enforcement agents to use evidence if they feel they were following the law (Worrall). The chapter discusses the exclusionary rule in criminal trials and its objections and problems. The exclusionary rule has been criticized for letting guilty people go free on technicalities, even if they committed a crime. The regulation may discourage police searches and seizures, even if they are necessary for public safety.
Despite these criticisms, the chapter concludes that the exclusionary rule protects constitutional rights and prevents unconstitutional searches and seizures. The chapter also suggests civil accountability for law enforcement officials who breach constitutional rights as an alternative to the exclusionary rule to balance individual rights and law enforcement wrongdoing. The chapter discusses standing concerning the exclusionary rule. Standing is a defendant’s legal standing to dispute unconstitutional search and seizure evidence. The chapter states that a defendant must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched area to challenge the evidence (Worrall). If a defendant is driving a friend’s car and drugs are found during a traffic stop, the defendant may not have standing to appeal the evidence unless they can prove they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In this chapter, the judiciary enforces the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a judicially devised remedy, but the chapter acknowledges that courts decide whether to use it. The chapter states that courts must weigh the interests of rejecting unconstitutional material, admitting probative evidence, and assessing each case’s facts and circumstances. The chapter examined the good faith exception and the inevitable discovery exception; however there are other ways unconstitutional evidence can be admitted in court. If the defendant consents to the search or the evidence is found during a valid arrest, unconstitutional evidence may be admitted.
The exclusionary rule’s impact on law enforcement is also examined. Some critics claim that the exclusionary rule may encourage police to use more force to seize evidence. However, the chapter acknowledges that there is little factual evidence to support this assertion and that the exclusionary rule is one of several legal safeguards to guarantee law enforcement officials comply with the Constitution. The exclusionary rule precludes Fourth Amendment-violating evidence from being used against a defendant in court. The exclusionary rule protects Fourth Amendment rights and deters unconstitutional searches and seizures. The chapter discusses the exclusionary rule’s history and reasoning. In 1914, the Supreme Court ruled in Weeks v. United States that evidence seized illegally must be excluded from trial. Mapp v. Ohio, a 1961 Supreme Court ruling, expanded the exclusionary rule to state courts (Worrall). The chapter also discusses exclusionary rule restrictions. The rule only applies to Fourth Amendment-violated evidence, therefore other constitutionally-violated evidence may still be admitted. The exclusionary rule has various exceptions, including the good faith exception, which allows evidence to be accepted if the officer acted in good faith reliance on an improper warrant.
Investigatory stops, often called Terry stops, are brief detentions by police for questioning if they suspect illegal behavior. Investigatory and Terry stops require officers to have specific, articulable evidence to reasonably suspect criminal activity. The chapter also states that investigatory stops must be quick and non-intrusive, and the officer must be able to justify the stop if asked. The chapter covers recent Supreme Court cases, including Terry v. Ohio. In Terry, the Court ruled that police can momentarily detain somebody for questioning if they suspect criminal behavior. The Court also said that officers can undertake a limited pat-down search for firearms if they suspect the person is armed and dangerous (Worrall). Investigatory stops and Terry stops can help law enforcement avoid crime, but they must comply with Fourth Amendment rights.The Supreme Court has ruled that police can briefly stop and pat down people with reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. The chapter discusses stop-and-frisk laws. The officer must have specific and articulable facts that cause them to reasonably assume the individual is engaging in criminal activity and limit the frisk to a weapons search for a stop and frisk to be constitutional. The chapter states that the officer may seize a weapon they reasonably suspect during the frisk.
The chapter analyzes recent Supreme Court cases, including United States v. Jones (2013). In Jones, the Court ruled that police must have reasonable suspicion to pat-down an armed and dangerous person. Stop and frisk can help law enforcement prevent crime, but it must be done in accordance with Fourth Amendment rights (Worrall). The frisk must be limited to weapons and the officer must have specific and articulable evidence to reasonably suspect criminal behavior. Arrests and Searches Incident to Arrest section discusses arrest and search rules. Police can arrest a suspect if they have probable cause. The police may search the arrestee and their immediate surroundings. This is an arrest-related search. The chapter then covers arrest-related searches. The arrestee and their immediate surroundings must be searched. The officer may seize evidence linked to the arrest.
The chapter discusses recent Supreme Court cases, including Carpenter v. United States (2018). Even if an individual is arrested, the Court said in Carpenter that the police must get a warrant before examining mobile phone location data. The chapter highlights that arrests and searches incident to arrest can help law enforcement solve crimes, but they must comply with Fourth Amendment rights. Officers must have probable cause to arrest and confine searches incident to arrest to the arrestee’s person and immediate control.
Conclusively, Chapter 12 of Criminal Procedure (Justice Series) discusses the exclusionary rule in modern criminal trials. The chapter discusses the history of the rule, its exceptions, and its critics and debates, concluding that it is necessary for protecting individual rights and guaranteeing fair justice.
Work cited
Worrall, John L. Criminal Procedure. Pearson, 2018.
write