There are many court cases involving the exclusionary rule. I will focus on the 1914 Supreme Court case of Weeks v. United States, which strengthened and started to define the exclusionary rule using the fourth amendment. Although that decision was only upheld on a federal level at the time. I agree with the ruling, I feel as though it was unfair to use evidence against a person in a court of law when the individual to obtained the evidence could have used a illegal way.
I agree and think that the exclusionary rule is very important in the judicial system. The exclusionary rule guarantees people protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, a right that is found in the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule also makes trials more fair and expands the rights of criminals.
I agree with Madison and Allison. I found another court case where the exclusionary rule was used besides Week v. United States. The court case I found was Mapp v. Ohio. In that court case, the Supreme court discovered that the evidence was seized illegally and therefore, couldn't be used. Ever since then the 4th amendment has been incorporated in the rights that restrict the states and federal government. That is also why I think Mapp v. Ohio was an important court case dealing with the exclusionary rule.
I tend to disagree with the exclusionary rule. Evidence no matter how it is received is still evidence that can be used in a case. I understand that the federal government and SCOTUS has determined that the right to privacy is implied, the right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the right to privacy is not technically guaranteed. If proof needs to be found, it should be found no matter the cause.
I agree with Laura that evidence found or received regarding a case should be able to be used whether or not privacy was a factor. If there is evidence to prove that someone did or did not do something, then it should be used because that could be the deciding factor in a court case and if evidence found without giving people their right to privacy had been used in some court cases, then the outcome could have been different.
There are many court cases involving the exclusionary rule. I will focus on the 1914 Supreme Court case of Weeks v. United States, which strengthened and started to define the exclusionary rule using the fourth amendment. Although that decision was only upheld on a federal level at the time. I agree with the ruling, I feel as though it was unfair to use evidence against a person in a court of law when the individual to obtained the evidence could have used a illegal way.
ReplyDeleteI agree and think that the exclusionary rule is very important in the judicial system. The exclusionary rule guarantees people protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, a right that is found in the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule also makes trials more fair and expands the rights of criminals.
DeleteI agree with Madison and Allison. I found another court case where the exclusionary rule was used besides Week v. United States. The court case I found was Mapp v. Ohio. In that court case, the Supreme court discovered that the evidence was seized illegally and therefore, couldn't be used. Ever since then the 4th amendment has been incorporated in the rights that restrict the states and federal government. That is also why I think Mapp v. Ohio was an important court case dealing with the exclusionary rule.
DeleteI tend to disagree with the exclusionary rule. Evidence no matter how it is received is still evidence that can be used in a case. I understand that the federal government and SCOTUS has determined that the right to privacy is implied, the right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore the right to privacy is not technically guaranteed. If proof needs to be found, it should be found no matter the cause.
DeleteI agree with Laura that evidence found or received regarding a case should be able to be used whether or not privacy was a factor. If there is evidence to prove that someone did or did not do something, then it should be used because that could be the deciding factor in a court case and if evidence found without giving people their right to privacy had been used in some court cases, then the outcome could have been different.
ReplyDelete