Should The Exclusionary Rule Be Used For Evidence Also

Should The Exclusionary Rule Used For Evidence Also Be Applied To

Evaluate whether the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, should also be applied to illegal arrests. Discuss the standards used by the court in U.S. v. Toscanino (p. 459) as a basis for your analysis. Additionally, analyze scenarios involving police procedures without warrants and define what constitutes a protective sweep in law enforcement practices.

Paper For Above instruction

The exclusionary rule serves as a fundamental safeguard within the American criminal justice system, designed to deter police misconduct by excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights. Originally established in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), this rule primarily applies to evidence acquired through illegal searches and seizures. However, the question arises whether this rule should extend beyond evidence to include illegal arrests, which are also violations of constitutional protections. The case of U.S. v. Toscanino (1974) provides a critical analysis of this issue, highlighting the courts’ evolving stance on the importance of maintaining constitutional safeguards in law enforcement practices.

In U.S. v. Toscanino, the court addressed the issue of illegal conduct by law enforcement officers in obtaining a defendant’s arrest and subsequent evidence. The case involved agents using coercive tactics that violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held that evidence obtained through egregious police misconduct could not be admitted, emphasizing that constitutional protections must be upheld regardless of the evidence’s potential utility. This decision underscored the principle that even in cases of illegal arrests or coercive tactics, the exclusionary rule applies to prevent the government from benefiting from its misconduct.

The standards outlined in U.S. v. Toscanino reflect a broader understanding that constitutional violations, such as illegal arrests, undermine the integrity of the justice system and violate individual rights. Applying the exclusionary rule to illegal arrests serves as a deterrent against unlawful conduct by law enforcement, promotes respect for constitutional rights, and ensures the integrity of criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, some legal scholars argue that extending the exclusionary rule to arrests could jeopardize the collection of evidence essential to pursuing justice. Despite these debates, courts generally agree that illegal arrests undermine the legitimacy of evidence obtained thereafter, thus warranting exclusion to uphold constitutional protections.

In practical terms, whether an arrest is legal hinges on the presence of probable cause and adherence to warrant requirements unless exigent circumstances or other exceptions apply. If law enforcement agents arrest a suspect without sufficient probable cause or a warrant, the arrest may be deemed illegal, and any evidence obtained as a result may be inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. Courts have consistently upheld that preventing illegal arrests serves as a vital check on police powers, as demonstrated in rulings that exclude evidence from such arrests.

Regarding warrants, the Fourth Amendment mandates that arrests generally require probable cause supported by a warrant unless exigent circumstances justify a warrantless arrest. In the scenario where a man informs an officer of a recent robbery and points out the suspect, the police are permitted to make a warrantless arrest if there is sufficient probable cause, especially if the suspect is in a public place and the circumstances are exigent. Similarly, if the officer learns that the suspect is at home after a neighbor confirms his location, the need for a warrant depends on whether exigent circumstances exist that justify immediate arrest without a warrant.

A protective sweep is a limited, search conducted by law enforcement officers to ensure the safety of officers and others during an ongoing investigation. Typically, this occurs when officers have probable cause to believe that an individual in a residence may be armed and dangerous. The sweep is narrowly tailored to uncover persons who may pose a threat, and it is permissible without a warrant if conducted incident to an arrest or under exigent circumstances. The legal justification for a protective sweep derives from the need to protect law enforcement and prevent harm, as established in cases like Arizona v. Grant and Maryland v. Buie.

References

• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• U.S. v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1974).
• Arizona v. Grant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009).
• Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1999).
• Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
• United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment.
• Fletcher, G. (2018). The Exclusionary Rule: Past, Present, and Future. Harvard Law Review.
• Dean, L. (2020). Police misconduct and the exclusionary rule. Yale Law Journal.
• Walker, S. (2019). Probable Cause and Warrantless Arrests. Washington Law Review.
• LaFave, W. R. (2017). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. Thomson Reuters.