Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. Arizona are admissible to impeach, and other evidence derived from such statements is often admitted when the causal connection between the violation and the discovery of the evidence is attenuated.
Given that innocent search victims possessed no evidence a court could later exclude, exclusion would not seem to be an indispensable remedy. Proponents of the rule believe that the training programs and changes in police culture fostered by Mapp reduce the occasions in which the police violate the applicable law in the first instance, even if some officers are willing to lie on the stand after it becomes clear that the discovery of the evidence was illegal.
Note, finally, that the rule does not require returning contraband to the defendant. The Supreme Court has been willing to require the exclusionary rule until such time as Congress or the states establish an effective alternative.
The standard explanation is that these alternative remedies for constitutional violations have been found, in practice, to be ineffectual. If the constitution requires some effective remedy for violations, and if tort and administrative remedies have proved inadequate in practice, there is a strong case for requiring exclusion.
The exclusion of eyewitness identification evidence obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, or by unfair suggestiveness in violation of due process, differs from both the Fourth and Fifth Amendment context. Donald Dripps See also Confessions; Counsel: With respect to the empirical issue of the rule's deterrent effect on police behavior, proponents of the rule point to the following evidence.
The increase is hard to explain except as deterrence in operation, because while other factors might have spurred the police to increase the frequency of searches, there was no practical reason for them to obtain search warrants except for the Supreme Court's decision in Mapp.
Gatesbefore the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration. On the whole it seems fair to say that the exclusionary rule does influence police behavior, but that the extent of that influence is open to reasonable dispute.
If the tort remedy, for example, were made a credible deterrent, fear of tort liability would cause the police to refrain from illegal searches. In our example, the government has no case without the drugs, and the court would have to dismiss the charge. Would it not make more sense to admit the evidence and punish the police by demotion or suspension, or through civil lawsuits.
If, however, the rate of suppression is low because of successful police perjury or trial court hostility to freeing the guilty, there is no inconsistency between a low suppression rate and a low compliance rate.
Oaks Malcolm Wilkey,  and others called for the exclusionary rule to be replaced with a comprehensive judicial remedy against all illegal arrests and searches and seizures e.
The burden is on the government to prove that the additional evidence was obtained independently of the compelled testimony. What is indispensable is some effective deterrent against future violations.
The first application of the exclusionary rule in a criminal context occurred in the Height case, decided in Suppose instead that the police, without a warrant, search the home of C and discover nothing incriminating. Thus far the Supreme Court has recognized a good-faith exception only when the police reasonably have relied on a warrant issued by a judge, on a statute passed by a legislature, or on a judicial record maintained by a clerk of the court.
But if an effective tort remedy replaced the exclusionary rule, and if damages were generous enough to encourage suits, the tort system would provide a new procedural forum for shaping substantive Fourth Amendment law.
If evidence is only rarely suppressed, the argument goes, the police must be complying with constitutional standards.
If the officer believes that a warrant is not required for a search, or conducts a search pursuant to a warrant, which he believes to be valid, the officer can be said to be acting in good faith. The common law did not allow the exclusion of evidence on account of irregularities in the way in which a party acquired it.
Conclusion The exclusionary rule persists because there is no credible alternative. - Having exclusionary rule protects people from illegal unrelated discoveries - Ramifications, what if a dead body was not found because officers dont have the right to search In what significant ways has the original Miranda decision been modified, and what is its long-term outlook, given the shifting composition of judges on the Supreme Court?
If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the newly discovered evidence, subject to a few exceptions.
Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule? Designed to deter police misconduct, the exclusionary rule enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from introduction at trial upon proof that the evidence was procured. Ramifications For The Police Having An Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule According to "Legal Information Institute" (n.d.), "The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution” (Exclusionary Rule).
"Ramifications For The Police Having An Exclusionary Rule" Essays and Research Papers. Ramifications For The Police Having An Exclusionary Rule.
Exclusionary Rule A police officer's duty is to maintain public. Alternatives to the Exclusionary RuleTheoretically, there are several alternatives to the exclusionary rule. An illegal search and seizure may be criminally actionable and officers undertaking one thus subject to prosecution, but the examples when officers are criminally prosecuted for overzealous law enforcement are extremely rare.Ramifications for the police and the public of having an exclusionary rule