Letter on the Exclusionary Rule

Re; A Rejection of Strict Application of the Exclusionary Rule of Evidence

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with its ban on "unreasonable searches and seizure," is the constitutional provision that, more directly than any other, governs police operations and administrative investigations (Hall. 1992). The Amendment emerges as one element on the effort to clarify the rights of individuals vis-à-vis governmental powers by balancing these rights against the legitimate need of society, through its authorized governmental agencies, to secure and maintain order and to execute the law. The Amendment is, according to some analysts, problematic in that it gives very limited details on how to deal with numerous search situations (Hall, 1992). Other Amendments (e.g., the 6th, 8th, and 14th) have also been addressed by the Courts in pursuit of confirmation of suspects' rights and the limits of state power.

Because this is the case, numerous Supreme Court rulings have been handed down in the past several decades in an effort to clarify the extent of protection accorded to individuals suspected of illegal actions and the corresponding power of law enforcement and other agencies to obtain evidence from or about these individuals. Beginning with the Warren Court's 1961 ruling in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 IU.S. 643, the Court has moved toward excessive attention to the rights of suspects in this and ot

. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Kaupp Texas, Terry Ohio, Amendment Constitution, Justice Scalia, Mapp Ohio, Court United, Court Court, Justices Constitution, Parole Scott, hall 1992, supreme court, exclusionary rule, 4th amendment, supreme court united, court held, court united, kaupp texas, justice scalia, law enforcement, individual rights, court united 2006, knock announce entering, violation 4th amendment, 4th amendment hall,
Approximate Word count = 1185
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Letter on the Exclusionary Rule