ary, 1979, 506).
Historical precedent for the Exclusionary Rule can be traced to Weeks vs. United States. The case concerns a man who was subject to a warrantless search by the police and deputy marshal. While searching Week's premises, the law enforcement agents discovered lottery tickets in his mail. Based on this evidence, Weeks was prosecuted for the illegal transport of gambling items. Prior to the trial, he requested the items taken from his house be returned; during the trial, he objected to their being offered into evidence. This provided the grounds for the Supreme Court appeal. The Court found in favor of Weeks, stating in their decision that "if letters and private documents can thus be seized and used as evidence. . . his right to be secure against such searches. . . is of no value, and. . . might as well be stricken from the Constitution" (Weeks vs. United States, 1997).
The Mapp case incorporated the 4th amendment into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment and created the "exclusionary rule," which prevents the use of evidence gained by these so called illegal searches (Mapp vs. United States, 1997).
Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule
As sometimes occurs, countervailing forces take turns interpreting the letter and the meaning of the law. In the Mapp vs. Ohio, opponents of the Exclusionary rule argued that "the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered," to which Justice Clark answered: "The criminal goes free if he must, but it is the law that sets him free" (Mapp vs. United States, 1997).
"Good faith exceptions" to Exclusionary rule provide that evidence is not to be suppressed under such rule where that evidence was discovered by officers acting in good faith and in reasonable, though mistaken, belief that they were authorized to take those actions (United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677).
This exception recognizes that officers who...