Exclusionary Rule Essay

Constitutional Law pertains to the account of fundamental laws of nation-states and other political associations. Thus, constitutions refer to the foundation and structure for government and could limit or characterize the power and system of political institutions to carry out new laws and policies (Chemerinsky, 2003). The constitution sets the boundaries of new laws, thus, the entire state is subjected to the constitution. The Fourteenth amendment of the United States which covers citizenship and civil rights is where the Fourth Amendment sprouted from. In recognition of equality among citizens discarding race, ethnicity and religion, the fourth amendment was made to protect the rights of the citizens and those are the right to due process and to privacy and security of his properties. This fourth amendment was created in 1914 was at the federal level and was only adapted by all states of America. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Search and Seizure) includes the Exclusionary Rule which protects citizens of the United States from illegal searches of their private properties (Sundberg). Any unwarranted intrusions made by the police force to the privacy of an individual are prohibited by law. For a search to be valid the warrant to search should be able to describe in detail the items to be searched, the location and facilities to be confiscated (Roberts, 2007). This lets the people enjoy their right to feel secure of their houses, documents, papers and other properties that are considered private. The rule also gives the citizen a right to due process as the police force cannot just confiscate and search them without the needed papers. Furthermore, this law also abides by the philosophy of deontology wherein the action is judged to be right or wrong if the root of the action itself is based upon the duty and obligation of a person (Darwall, 12). Thus, the means upon which evidence is acquired is more important than the value of the evidence gathered. Since this rule encompass criminal cases only, even if the police found a gun or any evidence that points out that the man who owns the property upon which the evidence was found is indeed the perpetrator, this evidence will be considered invalid in court and will not make any impact on the courts decision given that the police did not have the warrant to search the individuals property. In addition to that, a search that is made in areas that is not specified by the warrant is not allowed even if evidences are found within the parameters of the facility that was searched. The positive side of this law is that it protects the rights of every citizen against illegal searches by the police, thus securing their privacy. This also discourages illegal searches and bounds the police to their duty by following the law. However, the downside of this rule is that if evidence is found in illegally searched areas, even if it can very well summarize the outcome of the case will be put to waste for the simple reason that there was no warrant of arrest or it was not indicated in the warrant that such place is included in the search. The absence of that piece of paper means a lot in the proceedings, and such important evidences are discarded. For example, a weapon that is found in the car of a murderer with his finger print on it would still be useless in court since it was searched illegally. Which is more important then, the evidence or how the evidence was obtained? Perhaps for us to fully assess the situation it is a need for us to analyze a certain scenario. For the purpose of further understanding the gravity of the situation let us assume that a bomb explosion took place in a residential neighborhood rendering 10 people killed and 20 other wounded. Right after the explosion operatives responded in just 3 minutes given that the place is in close proximity to the police station. The initial assumption was for it to be a terroristic act. Since the neighborhood was closely knit almost everyone knew something about everybody. They denied that such ruthless murderer could be one of their residents but a policeman guided by his instinct was convinced that a prominent resident of the neighborhood did the bombing. The resident was bound to leave the place the day after but since it was a Sunday, the court was close and cannot issue a warrant plus the fact that they cannot link him to the bomb explosion. The policemen decided to search the house of the resident without the warrant and found evidence. Materials of making a bomb were found at his residence. They arrested him but after years the case was dismissed because of the exclusion rule. First and foremost, there was no warrant and second they filed motion to suppress the evidence. The law supports the defendants claim and sets him free. This issue is a philosophical debate of the deontological and consequentialist groups (Philip, 2002). Deontological perspective would argue that the fault was in the part of the officials since they did not do their duty. To act from duty is to do the right thing and it is more important that catching the perpetrator before he leaves the town. The obedience of duty is placed in higher value as the result of their act. Even if they found the evidence and arrested the man responsible for the bombing that killed 10 people, it is still not valid. They did not abide to their duty. â€Å"A human action is morally good if and only if it is done from duty† (Kant, 397–399). Consequential or Utilitarianism would say that the act of searching without a warrant is the right thing to do since they found who did the bombing. The measures upon which the police undertook to get to the perpetrator is not important as long as the greater good for the most number of people was realized, and that is justice. It does not matter if there is no warrant and the police invaded the house of a private citizen as long as the truth was discovered and the person responsible was caught. The evidence was clear, therefore is compensates for the policeman’s inability to adhere to the Fourth Amendment. Both philosophies have their reasons that are enough to justify their claims, but I believe that we should keep the Fourth Amendment as it is. It is in our law that we should respect the privacy and rights of a citizen. In the scenario above the policemen caught the perpetrator because they found evidence in his household. The search was illegal but either way, they got what they were looking for. However, what if they saw nothing, would it not be invasion of privacy on grounds as weak as instinct? Then the basic right to privacy and security of the citizen would have been violated. There is no need to change the exclusionary rule, policemen should abide by their duty and help to protect the rights of the people. We cannot compromise the basic rights of an individual for public safety. Though it is the duty of the police to go after the perpetrator and give justice to the crimes he has committed, he also has rights whether he is a citizen of the United States or not. According to the fourth amendment the exclusionary rule covers even illegal aliens. We cannot strip a person with his rights even if the need arises for the simple reason that it is adherence to our duty that defines who we are. If the exclusionary rule is to be abolished then, warrantless arrests and rampant would be more prevalent in our nation. Even now that the rule takes effect there are still violations. Rampant searches especially to our brothers with colors are evident in our nation. Wire tapping is also an issue about the security of communication lines especially for public officials. The Bush administration wanted to allow the use of evidences that were illegally seized by the police given that it was in good faith and is useful in finding the person who is responsible for the crime. Plus they want to allow federal agents to arrest persons without a warrant of arrest regardless of nationality as long as it is done with the most honest intentions. Sure this can solves some crimes such as the scenario given above, but I want to point out that this only allows further suppression of a persons liberty. When the use of illegally searched evidences is allowed in court, this would only encourage the policeman to search anyone and any house or establishment that they want to search and if they find nothing, the person concerned can’t go after the policemen and ask for damages. They will be protected by law to barge into the homes of countless citizens and invade their privacy. If we take action just because we believe that it is for the best even if it is not in our duty, we have no guarantee that that action can be fruitful. It can’t be denied that there is a need to reduce crime in our nation and solve those that are still looking for justice, but giving justice for the price of a person’s liberty is a cost that’s too high for a nation who values autonomy of its citizens. The exclusionary rule has set standards for our policemen for them to abide too such that their level of professionalism and adherence to their duty is further raised higher. They are bounded by law to protect the citizens of this nation and they should do so while safeguarding the basic rights of every individual. Thus, there is a need for the exclusionary rule to uphold the liberty of this nation. Reference http://www.robertslaw.org/4thamend.htm